>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