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?

westside_guy

UM
118 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?"

westside_guy Registered since 15th Dec 2007
Fri 18-Jul-08 11:41 PM | edited Fri 18-Jul-08 11:44 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.

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