photogeek
Professor Yaffle
Reged: 02/01/2007
Posts: 221
Loc: Londonish
|
|
Had a play in Jessops with D700, did think that going to full frame might result in the viewfinder being a bit small and unclear, but i was wrong, its an absolute cracker, with a round eye piece and it is very easy on the eyes, will have to think of another reason not to buy as my D300 actually does all i need.
--------------------
Be yourself you know its true and in the end whats left is you.....
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1179
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
Why did you think that a larger mirror and pentaprism would result in the viewfinder being small? 
|
Mark_Norton
Reged: 29/06/2002
Posts: 1168
Loc: London, UK
|
|
Bizarre thinking, though remember the D700 only shows 90% of what the sensor will capture.
--------------------
Mark
|
photogeek
Professor Yaffle
Reged: 02/01/2007
Posts: 221
Loc: Londonish
|
|
All I had seen in reviews is taht it is based on D300 and has 95% viewfinder, first thing i noticed was bigger penta prism and it is very nice
--------------------
Be yourself you know its true and in the end whats left is you.....
|
Mark_Norton
Reged: 29/06/2002
Posts: 1168
Loc: London, UK
|
|
Thst's 95% in each direction, making 90% coverage (0.95 * 0.95 = 0.90)
--------------------
Mark
|
Rhys
Sasquatch
Reged: 15/01/2004
Posts: 3199
Loc: York (home of the speedbump)
|
|
Even at 90% coverage, that's not enough. It should be 100% at that price.
You don't buy a pizza and expect the toppings to only cover 90% of it.. Why didn't they just nick bits from the D3? Surely can't be that much of a problem can it?
--------------------
NRIPN (Officially Nuts..)
RGMP.co.uk (My Website.. well early stages anyway)
Benchinistas.org.uk The home of Benchism
|
Matt Golowczynski
WDC Technical Writer
Reged: 07/08/2007
Posts: 151
Loc: London
|
|
well there's the crust......
|
Garry McNamara
Snr Tutor/Bongo Banjo
Reged: 16/08/2006
Posts: 2079
|
|
Quote:
Even at 90% coverage, that's not enough. It should be 100% at that price.
You don't buy a pizza and expect the toppings to only cover 90% of it.. Why didn't they just nick bits from the D3? Surely can't be that much of a problem can it?
I wonder if pixels dimensions should be quoted for the area you can see in the viewfinder and not that captured by the sensor as the extra will obviously have to be cropped out when you actually have the image.
It's odd Nikon could get 100% in the 50s and can only manage 90% in the noughties. Some manufacturers use to use the excuse that you might lose that extra in a slide mount so it was best not to show it in the viewfinder. Anyone seen slide mounts for digital images?
|
Mark_Norton
Reged: 29/06/2002
Posts: 1168
Loc: London, UK
|
|
Well, to capture the whole area, you need a focussing screen as big as the frame plus a pentaprism and optical system to allow you to see it all. That makes it big. In the D700, space taken up in the D3 by the optics is made available to carry the puny on-board flash. Someone, somwhere judged 90% + said flash is right for the D700 target market.
--------------------
Mark
|
Mark_Norton
Reged: 29/06/2002
Posts: 1168
Loc: London, UK
|
|
Quote:
I wonder if pixels dimensions should be quoted for the area you can see in the viewfinder and not that captured by the sensor as the extra will obviously have to be cropped out when you actually have the image.
One argument for showing less than 100% used to be that the card slide mounts would obscure the image border so that a 90% or 95% viewfinder provided a safety margin so that your mother-in-law's head didn't get cut off.
--------------------
Mark
|
Rhys
Sasquatch
Reged: 15/01/2004
Posts: 3199
Loc: York (home of the speedbump)
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I wonder if pixels dimensions should be quoted for the area you can see in the viewfinder and not that captured by the sensor as the extra will obviously have to be cropped out when you actually have the image.
One argument for showing less than 100% used to be that the card slide mounts would obscure the image border so that a 90% or 95% viewfinder provided a safety margin so that your mother-in-law's head didn't get cut off.
When you are shooting full frame on film - then printing using the films own border on filed out neg carriers less than 100% viewfinder coverage is a pain as composition is very important..
On digi it's just plain stupid not to have 100% coverage and excuses made by manufacturers is just a cop out from not getting it right in the first place or just plain penny pinching (which is probably more the point).
It reminds me of York Barbican swimming baths, when it was built it was about 2 feet short of Olympic length - the argument was the council couldn't afford the extra 2 feet. Due to this it missed out as being used for competitions and drawing more folks etc. There was also an Olympic spec diving pool as well.. The whole lot has since been demolished to make way for luxury apartments and the such.. What a waste..
Why a viewfinder that shows 100% of what the sensor pics up is not possible on any camera other than full pro spec is beyond me - after all it's hardly difficult to make it a bit bigger isn't it?
--------------------
NRIPN (Officially Nuts..)
RGMP.co.uk (My Website.. well early stages anyway)
Benchinistas.org.uk The home of Benchism
|
NorthernNikon
Bulls Hitter
Reged: 16/12/2005
Posts: 6167
Loc: Harrogate, North Yorks
|
|
Quote:
It reminds me of York Barbican swimming baths, when it was built it was about 2 feet short of Olympic length - the argument was the council couldn't afford the extra 2 feet. Due to this it missed out as being used for competitions and drawing more folks etc. There was also an Olympic spec diving pool as well.. The whole lot has since been demolished to make way for luxury apartments and the such.. What a waste..
It could be worse, it could remind you of the Leeds International pool urban myth which said that it was built to the Olympic length but they forgot to take into consideration the depth of the tiles and so it fell short or the required standard by a metter of centimetres.
Funnily enough, that's not been knocked down to. See here.
--------------------
www.BarneyAllen.com the new home of ComicShots.
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15456
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Quote:
Why a viewfinder that shows 100% of what the sensor pics up is not possible on any camera other than full pro spec is beyond me - after all it's hardly difficult to make it a bit bigger isn't it?
It's not the size that costs, but the precision manufacturing and assembly necessary to make sure the screen view actually aligns well enough for it to be precisely the same view, as opposed to just the same size. Cameras with less than 100% viewfinder coverage can be built to less strict tolerances, and thus cheaper. A 95% viewfinder just has to fall somewhere within the correct field, and in practice they are often de-centred.
--------------------
Huw Evans.
  
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9463
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
^^^
WHS
I know from practice that things just off the top of the screen in my 20D will appear in the picture while the bottom is pretty well dead on - if it ain't visible at the bottom at ain't on the picture.
I'd love to have the D3 with it's precision aligned 100% finder but I'm a bit short of the £3k's worth of readies...........not that I'm any closer to D700 money mind..... 
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
NorthernNikon
Bulls Hitter
Reged: 16/12/2005
Posts: 6167
Loc: Harrogate, North Yorks
|
|
Quote:
I'd love to have the D3 with it's precision aligned 100% finder but I'm a bit short of the £3k's worth of readies...........not that I'm any closer to D700 money mind.....
But for those in the fortunate position to be able to have the choice, it's another reason to pay the extra for a D3 over the cost of a D700 + grip et al.
I certainly would look to go the whole hog for a D3 were I to be able to secure a regular photographic income sufficent to justify the outlay. However, for those who would be doing primarily landscape work and who wouldn't necessarily require ther grip, a few test runs should give them enough of an idea of where the D700 viewfinder's edges are to be able to use it happily.
--------------------
www.BarneyAllen.com the new home of ComicShots.
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 37849
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Why a viewfinder that shows 100% of what the sensor pics up is not possible on any camera other than full pro spec is beyond me - after all it's hardly difficult to make it a bit bigger isn't it?
It's not the size that costs, but the precision manufacturing and assembly necessary to make sure the screen view actually aligns well enough for it to be precisely the same view, as opposed to just the same size. Cameras with less than 100% viewfinder coverage can be built to less strict tolerances, and thus cheaper. A 95% viewfinder just has to fall somewhere within the correct field, and in practice they are often de-centred.
Absolutely. So you can save a fair amount of money by reducing the viewfinder coverage, and make the camera a fair bit more compact. In addition, you can maintain some distinction between two different product lines. Further, i don't actually know anyone who would expect a pizza to have a 100% topping - even my kids accept the crust as a necessary evil. 
So it's understandable that a camera may not have a 100% viewfinder - certainly I accepted it happily enough as one of the compromises of my current DSLR. The question is at £2k is it a reasonable compromise to have to make? That's one for the individual to decide, I think.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Zou
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 05/02/2007
Posts: 2117
Loc: Edinburgh
|
|
Well, the pro Nikon F series (single digit) seemd to manage all right, and what was list on them? £1250 or so, wasn't it. Seems odd that you have to pay virtually double the money now to get something which is essentially 'old hat' for Nikon. I was very interested in the D700 specs, but have to say that given the D300 having 100% coverage, it seems an odd step backwards by Nikon. How many folk will really need the flash, especially given the sensor's low-light strengths? I'd much rather take the viewfinder size as a priority over an inbuilt flash.
--------------------
Zou's Flickr Page
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9463
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
But by contrast cameras such as the FM/FE series cost less than half that......and they didn't have 100% finders...
As for the cost of the D700 being twice that of the F# cameras I suspect that may be down to the presence of a very expensive sensor and the equally costly microcomputer shoehorned into the body to run it...
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
chris140472
newbie
Reged: 29/07/2008
Posts: 2
|
|
I have a D700. I ordered it on 1 July and it arrived on 26th. So far I am very happy with it. I had the F4s before which I sold on a few months back. 95% view finder irrelevant. 99% of photographers can produce high quality photos with a 95% view finder I am sure I can. I personally would not give a D3 house room because like so many modern cameras it has what I consider a major design fault. You can only use it with a special rechargeable battery pack. If like me you spend long periods away from a plug socket a camera that can be powered by AA batteries is a must. The D700 like the F4 can be so powered. Yes I got the power grip with mine.
I am expecting to have the D700 for a long time. After all until the pixel count gets higher than 48.4 million which is the figure needed to double the image resolution I will have no incentive to change.
Now to get down to what a camera is all about. Taking pictures.
|
Mark_Norton
Reged: 29/06/2002
Posts: 1168
Loc: London, UK
|
|
It's actually 90% area coverage, not 95%.
--------------------
Mark
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
