#14. "RE: Why "just" 95% would be a bad thing?" In response to In response to 8 Sat 19-Jul-08 12:44 AM by westside_guy
>Bjorn says that is 90.
Of course, the potential problem here is people may start saying something like "OMG! It's even worse than the 5D!" I believe Canon calculates their frame coverage the same way - so the 5D would also be around 90% if calculated the same way.
Anyone can feel free to correct me if they know that to be incorrect.