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?

nl

West Hartford, US
841 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?"

nl Silver Member Charter Member
Fri 18-Jul-08 03:27 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

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