>Hi,
>
>This really bothered me at first as well. Then I tried to
>figure out why. I believe it goes back to my film days, when I
>shot slides. Occasionally I would get something at the edge of
>the frame that was very distracting, often a bright spot. This
>bothered me to no end, especially if it was a once in a
>lifetime shot.

I think that sums it up for me. While 100% coverage sounds better in this digital age it's not a big deal to have less coverage. When doing normal hand held shooting I don't think many of us frame our shots so perfectly that 5% is going to make any difference.

Possibly in some studio situations 100% coverage is an advantage but then if the work was that critical you'd probably be shooting tethered anyway.

I also remember when I shot film with a Nikon with 100% coverage that negatives that were sent to a lab were always cropped at the edges when printed. Even in my own darkroom I seldom used the entire frame.

"Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click the shutter" - Ansel Adams