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?

Noel Holland

UK
2177 posts

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

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

Noel Holland Platinum Member Winner in the Nikonians 10th Anniversary Photo Contest Charter Member
Thu 17-Jul-08 09:11 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.

A general, generic topic Why "just" 95% would be a bad thing? [View all] , cayzi , Wed 09-Jul-08 05:01 PM
Subject
ID
Reply message RE: Why "just" 95% would be a bad thing?
1
Reply message RE: Why "just" 95% would be a bad thing?
2
Reply message RE: 95% similar thread
3
Reply message RE: Why "just" 95% would be a bad thing?
4
Reply message RE: Why "just" 95% would be a bad thing?
5
Reply message RE: Why "just" 95% would be a bad thing?
6
Reply message RE: Why "just" 95% would be a bad thing?
7
Reply message RE: Why "just" 95% would be a bad thing?
8
Reply message RE: Why "just" 95% would be a bad thing?
9
Reply message RE: Bjørn 90% viewfinder coverage
10
     Reply message RE: 95% vs. 90% math
11
          Reply message RE: 95% vs. 90% math
15
Reply message RE: Why "just" 95% would be a bad thing?
14
Reply message RE: Why "just" 95% would be a bad thing?
12
     Reply message RE: Why "just" 95% would be a bad thing?
13
          Reply message D700 95% - sensor cleaning module, not the flash
16