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?

brad_nikon


84 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?"

brad_nikon Registered since 18th Oct 2003
Fri 18-Jul-08 11:33 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.

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