Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising

Why "just" 95% would be a bad thing?

cayzi

Kranj, SI
418 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author
cayzi Registered since 15th May 2006
Wed 09-Jul-08 07:01 PM

Can any body explain me a negative side?

I had d200 which have 95% and know I have d300 which have 100% coverage and I really don't see any approvement in it.

I guess that size of prism is the same as d3 have so 5% is really nothing.

Kind regards,
Cayzi

walkerr

Colorado Springs, US
16971 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#1. "RE: Why "just" 95% would be a bad thing?" | In response to Reply # 0

walkerr Administrator Awarded for his con tributed articles published at the Resources Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in multiple areas Master Ribbon awarded as a member who has gone beyond technical knowledge to show mastery of the art and science of photography   Donor Ribbon awarded for his most generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2015 Nikonian since 05th May 2002
Wed 09-Jul-08 05:41 PM

If you're really careful about your compositions, you're less likely to have to crop an image to retouch a stray element in a photo if you're using a 100% viewfinder. It's definitely my preference to see the exact image I'm taking and not less than that, but I don't consider 95% to be a big problem. It certainly wouldn't hold me back from using or buying a D700. Heck, I own Leica M6 and M7 rangefinder cameras, and the viewfinders in those are wildly inaccurate compared with most SLRs. Somehow, I manage to get by. We obsess about some of this stuff too much.

Rick Walker

My photos:

GeoVista Photography

yelcab

San carlos, US
924 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#2. "RE: Why "just" 95% would be a bad thing?" | In response to Reply # 1

yelcab Silver Member Nikonian since 30th Nov 2006
Wed 09-Jul-08 06:34 PM

Some days when I get up out of bed, if I have 95% of my faculties about me, I am in good shape.

Same for the viewfinder.

monteverde_org

Monteverde Cloud Forest, CR
1283 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#3. "RE: 95% similar thread" | In response to Reply # 0

monteverde_org Silver Member Nikonian since 16th Nov 2007
Wed 09-Jul-08 07:10 PM

See this 95% similar thread with 45 replies: D700: Only 95% view-finder coverage?.

Len Shepherd

Yorkshire, UK
12722 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#4. "RE: Why "just" 95% would be a bad thing?" | In response to Reply # 0

Len Shepherd Gold Member Nikonian since 09th Mar 2003
Thu 10-Jul-08 05:31 PM

>Can any body explain me a negative side?
Whilst 100% is nice to have - it costs money.
Historically lots of pro grade Nikon's like the F100 had 96%.
In days not so long ago you had to get F5, 6 etc at F5 and F6 prices to get 100%.
And so it is with digital D300/3 for 100% and D700 for 95%.

Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.

Len Shepherd

cayzi

Kranj, SI
418 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#5. "RE: Why "just" 95% would be a bad thing?" | In response to Reply # 4

cayzi Registered since 15th May 2006
Wed 16-Jul-08 12:12 PM

I thought that d700 is in the same range or even better than d300.

But it looks like if nikon wants to put good price for d700 the viewfinder is one of the keys to do it.

Kind regards,
Cayzi

Noel Holland

UK
2177 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#6. "RE: Why "just" 95% would be a bad thing?" | In response to Reply # 0

Noel Holland Platinum Member Winner in the Nikonians 10th Anniversary Photo Contest Charter Member
Thu 17-Jul-08 07:11 PM

>I guess that size of prism is the same as d3 have so 5% is really nothing.

No it's slightly smaller, it has to be to squeeze in the on-camera flash.

Frankly IMHO the worst decision Nikon have made with the D700 is to incorporate the on-camera flash. Not because the flash is a bad idea, quite the opposite there are a number of advantages. But the reason it's a bad idea is because they've had to trade off the 100% viewfinder and settle for a 95% viewfinder. Now even that isn't really bad at all but it's being picked over like a three week old corpse on this forum as a HUGE problem.

What is this problem everyone has with the 95% viewfinder. Are we all that anally retentive here that we precisely measure up our exact framing and composition and NEVER make a slight crop in the edit stage?

Seriously folks this is getting close the attitude of the film rebate stylists who poopoo'd anyone who didn't print their rebates as proof that they used every millimetre of film space precisely.

As a matter of practice I ALWAYS add a bit of spare room to every frame I take. That allows me to change my mind on composition during the printing stage and make slight minor tweaks. All a 95% viewfinder does is build in that extra spare space to tweak the composition later without you having to think about it and consciously add it in. That's GOOD thing, not the end of the world it's being painted at times here.

Yes, I agree that there might be a few frustrated view camera landscape wannabes who sit for ages precisely measuring up their framing and who will be upset by getting an image that has just that tad bit of extra vista that they knew they had left out of frame. But for the majority of photographers the question of 100% versus 95% is so redundant I just can't understand why the issue seems to have such legs here. It's like the community has put it's brains on boil wash with a loose red sock on this matter. It's just a bizarre reaction.

nl

West Hartford, US
842 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#7. "RE: Why "just" 95% would be a bad thing?" | In response to Reply # 6

nl Silver Member Charter Member
Fri 18-Jul-08 01:27 AM

Well, let's see:

Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III and EOS 1D Mark III: "Approximately 100% horizontally and vertically" with 0.76x magnification.

Canon EOS 5D: approx 96%, 0.71% mag

Seems that Canon has had to make the same tradeoffs as Nikon - the two "pro" grade D-SLRs are 100% (well, approx, which means what?) and the prosumer FF (the 5D) is not 100%.

nl

cayzi

Kranj, SI
418 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#8. "RE: Why "just" 95% would be a bad thing?" | In response to Reply # 6

cayzi Registered since 15th May 2006
Fri 18-Jul-08 06:51 AM

Bjorn says that is 90.

Kind regards,
Cayzi

RWCooper

Winnipeg, CA
1019 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#9. "RE: Why "just" 95% would be a bad thing?" | In response to Reply # 8

RWCooper Silver Member Nikonian since 04th Jul 2004
Fri 18-Jul-08 10:34 AM

Hi,

Where does Bjorn say this? I'd like to read it for myself?

Thanks,
Randy

monteverde_org

Monteverde Cloud Forest, CR
1283 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#10. "RE: Bjørn 90% viewfinder coverage" | In response to Reply # 9

monteverde_org Silver Member Nikonian since 16th Nov 2007
Fri 18-Jul-08 08:42 PM

Bjørn Rørslett also says: "the 95% figure is NOT a planar measure as it should be, but linear. Hence actual frame coverage is 90%. This figure will vary slightly with the actual lens used..."

His post under the user name nfoto here & an other comment about the viewfinder coverage here: "you'll adjust quickly to the camera's way of "seeing". And there is always LiveView for the cases in which exact framing is required".

Obviously Nikon's priority with the D700 was to make it smaller & cheaper than the D3 & add sensor cleaning so what is the problem with the 95% thing in the mix?

The on board flash is in line with the lightweight priority: D3 + flash vs. D700.

monteverde_org

Monteverde Cloud Forest, CR
1283 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#11. "RE: 95% vs. 90% math" | In response to Reply # 10

monteverde_org Silver Member Nikonian since 16th Nov 2007
Fri 18-Jul-08 08:53 PM

There is an interesting post by zoetmb here about the math 90% surface vs. 95% vewfinder coverage:

"If there is 95% coverage in each direction, he would be correct from the perspective of area.
Here’s how to calculate it:
The Nikon FX frame is 36mm x 23.9mm resulting in a total area of 860.4 sq mm
95% of 36mm is 34.2mm.
95% of 23.9mm is 22.705mm. 34.2mm x 22.705mm = 776.511 sq mm

776.511 sq mm / 860.4 sq mm = 90.25%."

gpoole

Farmington Hills, US
4132 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#12. "RE: Why "just" 95% would be a bad thing?" | In response to Reply # 6

gpoole Platinum Member Fellow Ribbon awarded for his excellent and frequent contributions and sharing his in-depth knowledge and experience with the community in the Nikonians spirit. Awarded for his very generous support to the Fundrasing Campaing 2014 Writer Ribbon awarded for his article contributions for the Articles library and the eZine Nikonian since 14th Feb 2004
Fri 18-Jul-08 09:06 PM | edited Fri 18-Jul-08 09:07 PM by gpoole

Frankly IMHO the worst decision Nikon have made with the D700 is to incorporate the on-camera flash. Not because the flash is a bad idea, quite the opposite there are a number of advantages. But the reason it's a bad idea is because they've had to trade off the 100% viewfinder and settle for a 95% viewfinder. Now even that isn't really bad at all but it's being picked over like a three week old corpse on this forum as a HUGE problem.

To me the ability to have a built in CLS commander with the built in flash instead of having to buy another SB-800 or an SU-800 outweighs the viewfinder area loss.

For those instances that 100% view is critical Live View works great. If I'm framing so carefully that the 95% is a problem my camera would be tripod mounted and I would be working slowly enough that Live View would not be a handicap.

Gary in SE Michigan, USA.
Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the camera.
D4, D810, D300 (720nm IR conversion), D90, F6, FM3a (black), FM2n (chrome)
YashicaMat 124, Graflex Speed Graphic 4x5
My Nikonians Gallery & Our Chapter Gallery

brad_nikon


84 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#13. "RE: Why "just" 95% would be a bad thing?" | In response to Reply # 12

brad_nikon Registered since 18th Oct 2003
Fri 18-Jul-08 09:33 PM

The 95% coverage is a non-issue as far as I am concerned. It's getting blown way out of proportion.

In the days of film SLRs, most SLR viewfinders did not show 100%. I think that my Nikon F and perhaps my Nikon F4 might show 100%. The and millions and millions of SLR users without 100% viewing did just fine for many decades.

I haven't seen exact specifications from Nikon. Until then, it remains to be seen if the viewfinder shows 90% or 95%.

The other way of interpreting what 95% could mean is to take 95 percent of the full sensor size area:

.95 x 860.4 sq mm, which is 817.38 sq mm.

If Nikon marketing is being unclear about that, then shame on them! But I'm not worried. It's a non-issue. Rarely do I frame things to tightly that I'm worried about the last pixels around the edge. It's common for me to do a little cropping anyway.

I like the built-in flash. As much as a separate electronic flash unit performs better and offers more options, I found that the flip-up flash is very handy and adequate for many situations.

westside_guy

UM
118 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#14. "RE: Why "just" 95% would be a bad thing?" | In response to Reply # 8

westside_guy Registered since 15th Dec 2007
Fri 18-Jul-08 09:41 PM | edited Fri 18-Jul-08 09:44 PM 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.

RWCooper

Winnipeg, CA
1019 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#15. "RE: 95% vs. 90% math" | In response to Reply # 11

RWCooper Silver Member Nikonian since 04th Jul 2004
Fri 18-Jul-08 11:15 PM

Hi,

Thank you. I read what Bjorn and you have to say and I understand now. Planar vs linear, I learn something new every day.

Enjoy!

Randy


monteverde_org

Monteverde Cloud Forest, CR
1283 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#16. "D700 95% - sensor cleaning module, not the flash" | In response to Reply # 13

monteverde_org Silver Member Nikonian since 16th Nov 2007
Fri 18-Jul-08 11:46 PM

Nikon France representative said that the added thickness of the sensor cleaning module explains the 95% coverage, not the built-in flash. See my post here.

I agree that the 95% viewfinder thing is not an issue & like the sensor cleaning feature on my D300. I rather use it as much as possible than create a hurricane in the sensor chamber with a rocket blower that sends the dust who nows where! It gets rid of the dust on the sensor 95% of the time.

G