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?

walkerr

Colorado Springs, US
16908 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?"

walkerr Administrator Awarded for his con tributed articles published at the Resources Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in multiple areas Master Ribbon awarded as a member who has gone beyond technical knowledge to show mastery of the art and science of photography   Donor Ribbon awarded for his most generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2015 Nikonian since 05th May 2002
Wed 09-Jul-08 07:41 PM

If you're really careful about your compositions, you're less likely to have to crop an image to retouch a stray element in a photo if you're using a 100% viewfinder. It's definitely my preference to see the exact image I'm taking and not less than that, but I don't consider 95% to be a big problem. It certainly wouldn't hold me back from using or buying a D700. Heck, I own Leica M6 and M7 rangefinder cameras, and the viewfinders in those are wildly inaccurate compared with most SLRs. Somehow, I manage to get by. We obsess about some of this stuff too much.

Rick Walker

My photos:

GeoVista Photography

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