FRAMING FROM EYE VIEWER vs ACTUAL PHOTO

[GOMUS]

Today I am taking interior photo shooting with 350D.

I realise that the subject which I have tried to frame through eyeviewer is slightly off!
I try to hide the wall from the frame, but when I took, it appears in my photo!! I get so frustrated!

It is very easier to solve by photoshopping, but I just want to get it right on spot!! Hate it! Any interior or architectural photographer to share their opinion! Is it happened to all CANON DSLR from 20D/5D/1D or other brand. which model is better, I think may consider to change to other brand or exercise through their camera!!

This is one of shots taken, please free to comment too!~

 

[knoxknocks]

Today I am taking interior photo shooting with 350D.

I realise that the subject which I have tried to frame through eyeviewer is slightly off!
I try to hide the wall from the frame, but when I took, it appears in my photo!! I get so frustrated!

It is very easier to solve by photoshopping, but I just want to get it right on spot!! Hate it! Any interior or architectural photographer to share their opinion! Is it happened to all CANON DSLR from 20D/5D/1D or other brand. which model is better, I think may consider to change to other brand or exercise through their camera!!

This is one of shots taken, please free to comment too!~

It's because viewfinders in canon DSLRs other than the 1-series is not 100% frame coverage

 

[GOMUS]

It's because viewfinders in canon DSLRs other than the 1-series is not 100% frame coverage

opss...i dont think i have fund to upgrade to i series.
anyway to solve this issue, besides ps? or workhard n take shoot n correct again, use LCD as screen.

 

[syke]

opss...i dont think i have fund to upgrade to i series.
anyway to solve this issue, besides ps? or workhard n take shoot n correct again, use LCD as screen.

No. Other than crop the picture using PS or frame your shots taking in account the veiwfinder. Small issue imo.

Using LCD as screen, as in take a shot, view and make adjustments, thats if you have time.

 

[Stoned]

estimate.

 

[Ah Pao]

It's a "systematic error" so to speak, so you should know the amount of unseen frame is included in the final image after some use. Then take that into account when framing.

BTW, most DSLRs (from Canon or otherwise) do not have 100% viewfinder coverage, so it's something most of us have to live with.

Anyway, which wall in the photo that you didn't want to be included?

 

[GOMUS]

Anyway, which wall in the photo that you didn't want to be included?

It is at the right hand side of photo, there is a corner wall.
It looks more spacious without the wall.

 

[Belle&Sebastain]

not even the 1 series is 100%, 99 or 98%

 

[GOMUS]

estimate.

Using normal SLR we will have the same problem.
So cannot have proper control on film too. Have to develop the photo and scan, then crop. very troublesome, it mean SLR cannot take a proper shot?

 

[soma]

It's because viewfinders in canon DSLRs other than the 1-series is not 100% frame coverage

I thought olympus e300 is 100% frame coverage?:dunno:

 

[varf]

It's because viewfinders in canon DSLRs other than the 1-series is not 100% frame coverage

I thought olympus e300 is 100% frame coverage?:dunno:

he said in Canon DSLRs other than the 1 series. read carefully, or pick a better context to quote next time.

 

[raptor84]

Its all down to practice and remmebering how your camera works. What i do is frame what i want in the view finder then walk a little closer/zoom in a bit more. Iafter shooting 6 rolls i can get it right about 70% of the time so far

 

[GOMUS]

Its all down to practice and remembering how your camera works. What i do is frame what i want in the view finder then walk a little closer/zoom in a bit more. Iafter shooting 6 rolls i can get it right about 70% of the time so far

I went with a professional photographer, he took using large and medium format. Cool, seeing the upside down image, and he using a magnifying lens to go through spot by spot and make sure the photo is ok. The frame he taken reflected the reality. One shot, he spends at least 30-60min, 5 min set up the frame, 5 -10 min table, 5-10 min couch, 5-10 min coffeetable, lastly accessories was the headache one, 10-15min, opss..."We shall have a wine glass," he says....we quickly rush to buy 4 glasses, another 20 min. when all everything is ok, .........metering checking, .....weather/light is not looking good, 10-20 min waiting for cloud to cover the sun..........ops, for me, I need shoot and correct the frame again....

He is very confident, just one or two shots in large format. DONE.
He said, "we shall wait for the film to be developed."

BTW, he is humble man, taking 20 years photo, and claimed that he is not as good.
enjoying shooting with him. we will go down again for today evening shoot. see how.

 

[judeseah]

I thought olympus e300 is 100% frame coverage?:dunno:

its full frame transfer,
from sensor to processor,
not the coverage of viewfinder.

jude

 

[judeseah]

not even the 1 series is 100%, 99 or 98%

thot they r?
its the magnification that's less <1.

jude

 

[leafleaf]

The mirror in the 350D covers a slightly smaller area than the sensor behind it.

you would be viewing at what is reflected from the mirror into your viewfinder
and not the full area that sensor 'sees' during exposure. That is why it is smaller
that what is actually captured.

What most users do is train themselves to estimate this additional area
when they take pictures. Alternatively, you could crop out the additional
portion in Photoshop as you pointed out earlier but that of course, is an
additional step to your process.

while i think it is mechanically possible to design a camera with the mirror
at 100% or slightly bigger than the sensor, historical SLR designs have not
gone this way. There may be several reasons (1) bigger mirror will lead to
bigger camera body. (2) bigger mirror leads to additional camera vibration.
(3) bigger mirror leads to greater mirror swing, thus limiting shutter speeds.

So designers of SLRs seemed to have made the mirror close to 100% but
smaller that the exposure area (sensor).

Hope this helps.

Today I am taking interior photo shooting with 350D.

I realise that the subject which I have tried to frame through eyeviewer is slightly off!
I try to hide the wall from the frame, but when I took, it appears in my photo!! I get so frustrated!

It is very easier to solve by photoshopping, but I just want to get it right on spot!! Hate it! Any interior or architectural photographer to share their opinion! Is it happened to all CANON DSLR from 20D/5D/1D or other brand. which model is better, I think may consider to change to other brand or exercise through their camera!!

This is one of shots taken, please free to comment too!~

 

[GOMUS]

The mirror in the 350D covers a slightly smaller area than the sensor behind it.

you would be viewing at what is reflected from the mirror into your viewfinder
and not the full area that sensor 'sees' during exposure. That is why it is smaller
that what is actually captured.

What most users do is train themselves to estimate this additional area
when they take pictures. Alternatively, you could crop out the additional
portion in Photoshop as you pointed out earlier but that of course, is an
additional step to your process.

while i think it is mechanically possible to design a camera with the mirror
at 100% or slightly bigger than the sensor, historical SLR designs have not
gone this way. There may be several reasons (1) bigger mirror will lead to
bigger camera body. (2) bigger mirror leads to additional camera vibration.
(3) bigger mirror leads to greater mirror swing, thus limiting shutter speeds.

So designers of SLRs seemed to have made the mirror close to 100% but
smaller that the exposure area (sensor).

Hope this helps.

Great information!! Thanks leaf leaf!!
I learned something new today! but today technology and technique should be able to counter such problem, which will bring DSLR a better position. See what you taken! Somehow if they have adjusted the eyeviewer point toward or away, the size can be solve, maybe an good design eye piece will help, so some kind. The only problem is whether different lens will have different eyeviewer frame! I guess it will give the SLR designer bigger headaches!!;p

 

[RossChang]

Great information!! Thanks leaf leaf!!
I learned something new today! but today technology and technique should be able to counter such problem, which will bring DSLR a better position. See what you taken! Somehow if they have adjusted the eyeviewer point toward or away, the size can be solve, maybe an good design eye piece will help, so some kind. The only problem is whether different lens will have different eyeviewer frame! I guess it will give the SLR designer bigger headaches!!;p

Today's technology does solve such problem, but Canon only market it in their 1D series body due to difficulty in manufacturing it...:sweat:

 

[raptor84]

Today's technology does solve such problem, but Canon only market it in their 1D series body due to difficulty in manufacturing it...:sweat:

Actually they only make it on thier 1 series bodys' for marketing reasons. If thier 300 series had it it will be less motivation for userrs to upgrade

 

[GOMUS]

Actually they only make it on thier 1 series bodys' for marketing reasons. If thier 300 series had it it will be less motivation for userrs to upgrade

this approach sound like a CANON marketing strategy, as one 1D series have full viewfinder.
I guess to resolve such viewfinder problem, an attached eyeview may able to achieve it to a full viewfinder.
Since CANON are unwillingly to produce, if any external company, like sigma can design something for CANON??
If third company step into this marketing, I guess CANON do something to it.