What SLR's Have a 100% Viewfinder?

As far as the worst SLR viewfinder I've ever used, that one is easy: Rolleiflex SL35. Low contrast, non existent 'snap.'

My F2 has an H2 screen, takes some getting used to, but I really like it.
 
So the question in my mind has always been, if the spec is 95%, is that 95% by area, or 95% length and 95% width. If it's L&W, then the true area is closer to 90%.
 
I preferred SLR viewfinders with 100% viewfinder coverage when I was shooting flat artwork because I needed include the entire artwork without including the frame or borders. The 100% viewfinder coverage of my Nikon F, F2, F3, and F4 provided precision composition. My SLRs that provided 93% coverage were less desirable to me.

I also liked the Leica M6 rangefinder coverage. It was not as precise as the Nikon coverage but it offered coverage greater than 100%. This allowed me to view objects outside what the camera was actually going to capture. This was very useful when following moving subjects.
 
Robert Ades said:
So the question in my mind has always been, if the spec is 95%, is that 95% by area, or 95% length and 95% width. If it's L&W, then the true area is closer to 90%.
Click to expand...

I've not seen it specified formally, but conventional usage suggests the percentage of coverage of an SLR viewfinder is an area measure, not a linear measure.

G
 
Freakscene said:
The normal measure is the %age of the diagonal.

Marty
Click to expand...

Really? I've never seen that definition. Any references?

All the references I can find quickly state the percentage of the area:

https://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/t...camera-terms/viewfinder-terms-explained-12811
Coverage
This indicates how much of the captured image is visible through the viewfinder upon composition. Measurements are usually given as one figure, such as 95%, though sometimes separate figures are given for the vertical and horizontal axes.
Click to expand...


http://snapsort.com/learn/viewfinder/coverage
Viewfinder coverage refers to the amount of the image (that will ultimately be captured) that can be seen through the viewfinder. Although you would think that the viewfinder would represent the full image that isn't always the case. This measurement is really only relevant to DSLRs as they use optics to redirect the light that would normally be seen by the sensor through the viewfinder. Because the camera's optics may not be perfect, the coverage ratio tends to range from 95-100%. Professional DSLRs typically provide 100% coverage while prosumer and entry level DSLRs cameras typically provide 95% coverage.
Click to expand...

https://av.jpn.support.panasonic.com/support/global/cs/dsc/knowhow/knowhow10.html
What is viewfinder coverage?
This indicates the percentage of the actual image recorded on the film or CCD that can be seen in the viewfinder.
The wider the viewfinder coverage, the easier it is for the photographer to visualize the trimming amount. For example, if the viewfinder coverage is 80%, the remaining 20% will be cut off.
Click to expand...

https://www.neocamera.com/article/viewfinder_sizes
...The table below shows the specification of each DSLR camera's viewfinder. Coverage is measured as a percentage of the full image captured. Therefore, a viewfinder with a coverage of 100%, shows the entire image to be captured. ...
Click to expand...

G
 
charjohncarter said:
Right, So what is the big deal about this. If you shoot a couple of rolls and you are obsessed with 100% you will realize you don't or you do have it. But ability to focus well to me is very much, very much more important.
Click to expand...

Someone thinks one particular thing is super important who, I guess, may not have actually done that much photography. In the photos I take I basically never have time to look right to the edges of the frame, so 100% coverage is pointless. Having a viewfinder that facilitates quick, definitive focusing, however, is something else altogether and is very important. The internet gives everyone a mouthpiece, and advice is mostly given in definitive terms, whereas the answer to most things is variable. In photography, some craft things, like archival fixing, can be done ‘right’ (your negatives will last) or ‘wrong’ (they will not last). Almost everything else comes down to preference, or, as some call it, ‘art’.

A 100% viewfinder is nice for me on the rare occasions that I have a camera on a tripod or I am photographing something that doesn’t move, or where I have a composition whose main elements are right at the edge of the frame. None of those things happen to me very often.

Marty
 
If I remember correctly, Leica film SLR's had some percentage below 100% that they said corresponded to the frame of a 2" slide; of course, in those days no one would admit to using print film ;-)


Regards, David
 
My original Nikon-F, Nippon model and later Nikon on top plate.
24mm x 36mm. Later Nikon ever so slightly less..
The Digital FF Nkon uses a slightly smaller sensor.
So it's 100% of that size sensor.
My Pentax SP and KM, K1000 were 90 odd % and varied from camera to camera in placement!
Some more right, some more left in horizontal, same for vertical.:D
Nikkormat the worst of all my SLR but a lovely finder(not removable).
Only doing esp rigorous copy jobs on slide film, one could easliy crop.
Fact: " storm in a teacup".
 
Godfrey said:
Really? I've never seen that definition. Any references?

All the references I can find quickly state the percentage of the area:
G
Click to expand...

It is what Nikon and Canon engineers use from discussions with them, but for consumers there are a mixture of measures.

Marty
 
Nikon sold a lot of cameras for use in the scientific and technical market. Having 100% coverage was useful. There are several finders and screens that make focusing easy with a 100% coverage.

Back in the day: I filed down my negative carrier for the enlarger to get 100% of the negative. That way it matched my Nikon F and F2.
 
leicapixie said:
My original Nikon-F, Nippon model and later Nikon on top plate.
24mm x 36mm. Later Nikon ever so slightly less..
Click to expand...

We've already had a lengthy discussion on this topic in the Nikon RF subforum, but the film gate of the early Nikons including the SP and F is shorter than 36mm. It is more like 35.6mm, resulting in a less than 2x3 ratio. It wasn't until the F2 that it was a full 24x36mm area, but apparently only the F2's non-metered prism has 100% coverage. Anyway, the original F viewfinder does has 100% coverage and I find it very useful as I like to use the whole negative, but I know to others it might be a worthless feature.
 
The Nikkormat FTn was not very precise, but much more precise than a Leica M3.

Just keep some border around your subject and then there is no problem.

Erik.
 
keytarjunkie said:
We've already had a lengthy discussion on this topic in the Nikon RF subforum, but the film gate of the early Nikons including the SP and F is shorter than 36mm.
Click to expand...

Yes, this makes cutting the negatives very easy. Try to cut the negatives of an early Leica.

The Nikkormat also had a shorter length of the negative, but the space (nicely broad) between the pictures lay exactly in line with a sprocket hole. That is why a sharp barb was created during the cutting that cutted the paper of the negative album.

Erik.
 
pushto1600 said:
Isn't the DE-1 prism for the F2 the only one with 100% coverage?
Click to expand...
No it isn't, all finders for the F2 have 100% coverage, all having the same prism and the same eyepiece unit as the DE-1.

But it is true to say that it is difficult to find a better finder than a plain DE-1 combined with a "red dot" type "R" focusing screen designed for the late F3 and the F4, and retrofitted in an F2 focusing screen frame.
 
I watched many videos of his. He is good person and talks about interesting things. He is also very practical person. Two F3 for decades, no service.
He promotes his cameras periodically. 100% VF is one of these glorifying of F3 video.
But his choice of 50 Nikkor macro and lecturing about spending time on composition are not my cup of tea. His son, who is also in business with him, is using Leica. I think, he also finds rangefinder photography to be better for street. Maybe not in terms of perfect compositions of some boring, weak subjects, but in capturing of the moment, while it feels right. We had some short talk about it with him on JF FB page. To me street photography is about feelings of the moment. John is into perfection of composition most and foremost it seems.
I don't care if my DSLRS or SLR have 100 % or not. Maybe some like F2 has it. It is irrelevant for photography to me.
 
Freakscene said:
Someone thinks one particular thing is super important who, I guess, may not have actually done that much photography. In the photos I take I basically never have time to look right to the edges of the frame, so 100% coverage is pointless. Having a viewfinder that facilitates quick, definitive focusing, however, is something else altogether and is very important. The internet gives everyone a mouthpiece, and advice is mostly given in definitive terms, whereas the answer to most things is variable. In photography, some craft things, like archival fixing, can be done ‘right’ (your negatives will last) or ‘wrong’ (they will not last). Almost everything else comes down to preference, or, as some call it, ‘art’.

A 100% viewfinder is nice for me on the rare occasions that I have a camera on a tripod or I am photographing something that doesn’t move, or where I have a composition whose main elements are right at the edge of the frame. None of those things happen to me very often.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Have never needed or cared about a 100% viewfinder.

Those of us who shoot rangefinders are used to having framing that is sloppy at best; it even varies by focus distance. :D
 
Many current Nikon DSLRs, pro and consumer models, advertise 100% viewfinder as well. But I'm in the group who do not really care much at all. I wear eyeglasses and have to look around inside the finders to see the edges of just about all the cameras I use anyway. You make mental adjustments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom