Perhaps I'm alone in this, but I prefer the less coverage in the viewfinder. All too often I find that I missed an important detail; perhaps a finger or an elbow, or the frame isn't quite straight. Having that extra little bit on the edges gives me room later. I tend to shoot loose anyway with an eye for minor adjustments in post later on. Besides any print image needs to be cropped slightly anyway to fit on standard size paper.
I am afraid you read right...! The viewfinder of the coming D700 covers only 95% of the frame, they explain (Nikon France) it is because of the dust removal system thickness...!!! We had accepted almost anything but not this...
In this video interview in French of Nikon France Reflex Products Chief, he says, @ the 2 min. mark, that the added thickness of the sensor cleaning module is why, amongst other reasons ("notamment"), the D700 viewfinder coverage is @ 95%.
With the constraints of body size, geometry & a thicker sensor & sensor cleaning module, Nikon had to change the position & form of the D3 mirror. Bjørn Rørslett says here: "The mirror of the D700 is clearly smaller than that of D3. It is hinged within a different kind of supportive frame too that is thicker along the edges."
So a 95% viewer is part of the mix: sensor cleaning feature, body size, flash & cost. Like everything else in photography, it's a compromise & arguably not a big deal.
I have no issue with it. I've used 100% viewfinder cameras and non-100% cameras. I'm happy either way. With the 95%-type, it's kinda nice to have that little bit extra in case you need to rotate the photo a degree or two in post-processing.
If you compose a photo with a 100% viewfinder, and put important image detail at the extreme edges, and you need to rotate, you're out of luck -- some of that important detail WILL be lopped off, or you'll have an off-kilter photo.
This has never bothered me. I have gone back and forth between 92% and 100% in Nikon bodies over the years, sometimes depending on which camera around my neck I am grabbing, and its never been a problem. Worse case scenario, you need to crop a bit in post. This issue certainly isn't a fatal flaw in my book. If it bothers you however, better save up for a D3.
Cost = Unlikely This is not the reason for reducing the size of the pentaprism. The saving would be miniscule compared to the cost of re-engineering the design and running a sperate component production line just for the D700. Better to use the D3's pentraprism than to have that extra hassle.
The dust removal system? = Unlikely The dust removal system shouldn't impinge on the pentaprism.
But the prize for identifying the mostly probable reason goes to MarkF.
The pop-up flash is the only reason that makes sense as to why the viewfinder area had to be shaved to 95%. The extra space needed by the popup flash requires a slightly smaller pentaprism. It's not a problem for a DX camera due to the smaller image area they cover but on an FX camera the only other solution is to make a much larger finder housing and seemingly Nikon didn't like that alternative.
This really bothered me at first as well. Then I tried to figure out why. I believe it goes back to my film days, when I shot slides. Occasionally I would get something at the edge of the frame that was very distracting, often a bright spot. This bothered me to no end, especially if it was a once in a lifetime shot. When I bought the F4 with its full frame coverage in the viewfinder I was able to eliminate this problem. This has happened to me a few times with my D200 even though I am very careful to try to avoid it. With a digital camera I am able to crop this out very easily, and as it is at the very edge of the frame I don't lose a lot of pixels. Once I realized this I placed an order for a D700.
I must thank another poster for guiding my thoughts is this direction.
>Hi, > >This really bothered me at first as well. Then I tried to >figure out why. I believe it goes back to my film days, when I >shot slides. Occasionally I would get something at the edge of >the frame that was very distracting, often a bright spot. This >bothered me to no end, especially if it was a once in a >lifetime shot.
I think that sums it up for me. While 100% coverage sounds better in this digital age it's not a big deal to have less coverage. When doing normal hand held shooting I don't think many of us frame our shots so perfectly that 5% is going to make any difference.
Possibly in some studio situations 100% coverage is an advantage but then if the work was that critical you'd probably be shooting tethered anyway.
I also remember when I shot film with a Nikon with 100% coverage that negatives that were sent to a lab were always cropped at the edges when printed. Even in my own darkroom I seldom used the entire frame.
"Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click the shutter" - Ansel Adams
I think that while 100% view-finder is a very good thing, it is not nearly as important as having a good, bright viewfinder. This is the thing that my D300 has that causes me to wince in pain when I pick up my older D70.
Admittedly, the D70 is seriously weak in the viewfinder area, but I didn't really mind it when it was my primary body. Perhaps that is because I was so jazzed up about it when I first got it - since it is similarly awful compared to my older film bodies - but sheesh, now? It really is awful.
I certainly agree with you about the D70. I really enjoy macro photography but found that with the D70 manually focusing my macro lens was quite the challenge. I decided that for macro I'd go back to my F4 and save up to buy the F6. In the interim the D200 was announced and I found it to be acceptable for macro work. I have high hopes for the D700 in this area as I expect it to have a brighter viewfinder than the D200.
How the heck does anybody know what this camera is capable of? It's not even out. Everybody is a pro. Get a life. The only good thing about this D700 is that I'll be able to upgrade to a D200. Most of you people aren't even going to get a D700.
It really comes down to each person's needs. There is a difference between annoyance and necessity when it comes to 100% viewfinder. For non-professionals you guys have the luxury of taking your time and cropping the image later in post processing. Try cropping several hundred pictures a day. It slows down turn around time to customers and basically adds more costly editing time especially if you are paying someone to do it.
There are also plenty of times when I don't even have the luxury of editing my pictures before they are printed and handed over to the customer. One company I work for prints images on site so I have to get everything from white balance to cropping exactly the way I want it. That 5% missing in the viewfinder can make a difference because sometimes you can get the edge of a light poll, trash can, etc in the picture that wasn't in the viewfinder and for fast pace events like sports photography there is no way you can review each image in the LCD to check for problems. You just review a few of them and hope the rest are good.
I do agree that for a majority of people the 95% viewfinder will probably not cause too much of a problem, but there is a reason why just about all "professional" class cameras have 100% viewfinders. We don't always have the luxury to post process especially if you work for a company rather than your own business. Considering the price of the D700 I would categorize it closer to professional class than prosumer, but like I said not everyone will be affected by the viewfinder so for some it's a deal breaker and for others it's not.
I dont find a problem with the 95% FOV. I dealt with the narrower field with my previous Dslrs. Granted I love the 100% with me D300 but, for me the D700 is perfect. I wanted to have a Fool Frame camera and a DX too. Oh and the price is not as bad as I thought it would be when it was a rumor. I just found out the camera is a reality today. I work too much, me thinks it makes me miss all the good stuff.
I wonder if you could 'batch crop' that extra 5% that you didn't compose for a large group of images? That would save a lot of time, and you wouldn't be losing too many of those pixels! They'd still be there for the really good/important shots.
>Maybe I missed it in the earlier posts, but won't you get >100% on Live View if the extra 5 % is important to you
As I was reading all the post I was dying to say "LIVE VIEW" if you need 100% but you beat me to it.
Cant we just know that the subject will have a little extra around them that I cant see. I think that you will adjust your shooting habits knowing that you have more then you see. Now I will have a 300 and a 700 so might have some issue when I use the 300 and expect that I have extra and really don't.
I am still trying to find things to sell to get the 700. I was going to buy a new implement for my tractor now I am going to rent it. (I am not a farmer just a hobby for a tech guy)
>As I was reading all the post I was dying to say "LIVE >VIEW" if you need 100% but you beat me to it.
The problem with Live View is that you have to hold that camera out away from your face. Depending on what you are shooting and your camera settings this can cause blurry photos because you don't have a stable platform. For example I can shoot in very low lighting when I support myself with good handholding techniques.
Also for some types of shooting that require a heavy lens it's not really practical to shoot all day holding out the camera. That's a quick way to get a sore back and tired arms.
>Cant we just know that the subject will have a little extra >around them that I cant see. I think that you will adjust your >shooting habits knowing that you have more then you see.
That's probably what most people do to compensation but as I've said in my other post there are times when you get the edges of objects within that missing 5% of the viewfinder. Extra space around your subject would not be a problem if it were just dead space but having something like the edge of a trash can sneaking into your "blind spot" doesn't make for a great picture.
And depending on how you frame the subject, cropping out the trash can in post processing while keeping a specific crop ratio for print means also cropping off the top of someone's head, etc. This means costly editing time to digitally remove the trash can.
Of course not everyone has to deal with these problems but trust me these problems do exist. The 95% viewfinder is a concern but only for a small group of people. For most people it's not a deal breaker.
As a few others have said, I'd think this was a bigger deal back in the film days. I have a tendency to frame slightly wide anyway, so the 95% viewfinder isn't a big deal for me. Framing wide gives me a few pixels to play with; plus when I've had photos mounted it seems like the matte covers the very fringe of the image.
Wow! what a bunch of threads. Some for, some not. And very few in the Not category. I have shot with Nikon's since 1973 and they all worked for me. When one knows the results you can make the necessary adjustments when shooting. If you compare what was available over the past 40 years, Nikon has done a bang up job. If they did it all correct it would probably be a D3XSII and you couldn't afford it. So they make trade-offs knowing that users will accept the minor details when they can make the adjustments both physical and photographically.
I think it's a marvelous camera for the price, and had I not purchased my D300 some months ago, I would have put one on order without hesitation. I have the good fortune of having use of a D3 at work and now that Nikon has made it smaller, I believe it will probably be added to our arsenal. I hope so, I very much look forward to wrapping my hands around one on a regular basis. This will surely make the competition stand up and take notice. NIKON U DID IT AGAIN...
I was getting tired of people saying I was judging a camera before it was even out.
Out or not, it still only shows 95% view finder, that's a fact, it isn't a guess or opinion...the view is only 95%.
And I do find that a disappointment, I would prefer 100% but if the camera is as good as it appears to be it might not be a fact that will keep me away from buying the camera. 100% would be preferred like 100 ISO capability would be nice but I could live with 200 ISO if the rest of the camera makes taking photos easier and more enjoyable.
I think this camera and my beast (28-70mm) would be a match made in heaven and will be a blast to shoot with.
I guess we'll have to see...
Nikkor? Didn't he fight Godzilla in the 2nd movie?
>Then sorry for over-reacting to your comment... > >I was getting tired of people saying I was judging a camera >before it was even out. > >Out or not, it still only shows 95% view finder, that's a >fact, it isn't a guess or opinion...the view is only 95%. > >And I do find that a disappointment, I would prefer 100% but >if the camera is as good as it appears to be it might not be a >fact that will keep me away from buying the camera. 100% would >be preferred like 100 ISO capability would be nice but I could >live with 200 ISO if the rest of the camera makes taking >photos easier and more enjoyable. > >I think this camera and my beast (28-70mm) would be a match >made in heaven and will be a blast to shoot with. > >I guess we'll have to see... >
Nikon have to leave some room for improvements,mayby the D800 will be with a 100% view.But i only have a D200 right now so the D700 will be a huge improvement for ME.
OFF TOPIC: Now that some people cant do without DX , wouldent the D700 in DX-mode perform as good as D200 even with less MP ?? Or would i notise the diffrence.?
>You will have the better ISO of the D700 in DX mode, but the >D200 image will have more resolution than the D700 in DX >mode. Okay,even with a better sensor? Doesnt a better sensor produce more dynamic range and resolution isnt everything,right?
>Okay,even with a better sensor? Doesnt a better sensor produce >more dynamic range and resolution isnt everything,right? > >Nikolaj Freiesleben That sounds stupid,i know the resolution is better on a D200. So i try again. Because its a better sensor,then its only resolution that i have to worry about when i buy a D700 and use it in DX-mode. I never print out big so i really think that even in DX-mode ill upgrading from the D200.
Sometimes i really have to look at what im writing
Correct me if I am wrong, but I find it slightly amusing that we worry about this so much...From what I can tell the sensor in any of these 35mm based cameras don't physically match any standard print size any which way you put it, so cropping will occur more likely than not no mater what. Am I wrong in this? The aspect ratio doesn't match regular print sizes. Neither did 35mm film. I want a square sensor!
Exactly the point.....at least from a wedding and portrait photographer standpoint.....clients order normal size prints....it must because they recognize what 5x7 or 8x10 or whatever is. Rarely would they make that large of print or at those sizes. Many of the standard ordered prints are going to be cropped. 4x6 normally end up as nothing more than quick proofs. Then also when you order borderless prints, the extreme edges are cropped off almost all the time to make sure they are borderless with print machines.
>Hi, > >If you print 12" x 18" on 13" x 19" paper >you have the same aspect ratio as the sensor. And there is >always the 4" x 6" option. > >Enjoy! > >Randy
And no matter if you do order prints with the correct 2:3 aspect ratio, printing machines invariably do what? They crop a smidgen. It's the same thing in the old film days. No matter whether you order prints from negatives or mounted transparencies with your slide film processing, cropping occurs, even with the correct aspect ratio (4x6, 8x12, etc.).
With rare exceptions, the fussy-fuss about 95% viewfinder coverage is blown way out of proportion. The grain of salt isn't Mt. Everest!
With that said, IMHO, I would be more concerned about feeding trolls because the issue is really a non-issue.
Sun 20-Jul-08 08:00 PM | edited Sun 20-Jul-08 08:03 PM by heseltine
Having used the Nikon FM with its 95% viewfinder since around 1980, I did not realise the difference between a 95% and 100% viewfinder until I bought a used F3 three years ago and was amazed that the 100% viewfinder appeared so much bigger and easier to work with.
I will compare the D700 with the F6. Which camera I buy will be decided on by the quality of the viewfinder. If they are approximate to each other in quality of view, then I will enter the digital age, though somewhat kicking and screaming.
Mark (Viewfinder blacked-out? Then remove the lens-cap.)
Considering that this would be my very first dslr, going from an F100 with 96% viewfinder coverage down to 95% is not that big a deal for me. I understand there is just so much room in the body for all the features it offers without having the extra body room as the D3. Mine is on order now...
Sorry, I hit the wrong reply button...
Nikon F100 Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8 AF Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D AF Nikon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.6D AF Nikon SB-28DX
Been holding my breath (and fingers)trying not to respond but too much bait has been laid...I strongly suspect the 95% is due to 'room' and the pop up flash takes up too much. Drop the flash--heck no...this camera is clearly for a serious amateur (who doesn't always carry flash equipment). The Canon D5 has captured quite a market for the full frame (I want my wides back set). This is Nikon's response.
Are there pro photographers who have serious dollars on the line--Yes... Do they need the 100% viewfinder for instant critical framing decisions Yes...BUT if you are in that line of work and framing is that critical...if the 100% viewfinder is that absolute critical...you already have your camera--it is called the Nikon D3. Buy that camera--it is the one you need.
Although I prefer a 100% viewfinder, I've always had less than 100% prior to getting the D300, and with the exception of a few instances I didn't have any problems.
I got to play around with a D700 for a few minutes last week when a Nikon rep brought a few of them to a local camera store near me to demo, and I shot some images and looked at the LCD screen to see how much more was in the image from what I saw in the viewfinder. It looked like only a little extra got in the image.