The reason given in the days of film(sorry guys) was that part of the
frame was hidden under the edge of the slide or the negative holder in
the enlarger or scanner and that the viewfinder was allowing for that.
With digital we really use the whole frame and some of the
manufacturers seem to have gotten the message. Especially in these days
with acres of black stuff around the image in the viewfinder you would
think the view could take in the entire image.
On the other hand I would argue that the 4% you are talking about is
not really significant. #1 is that it is a digital camera and you will
have an editing program that can easily crop out anything that you
want. #2. What is 97%? On a a 24 x 36mm slide it is about .2mm border
all around the slide. Not much detail there.
Winsor
Long Beach, California
USA
On Sep 29, 2004, at 2:39 AM, Gareth.J.Martin wrote:
>
> I can see what you mean about a little slack in the viewfinder for
> slides but surely they could have upped the visible area to 97% on the
> E-300 or somewhere around that? I've taken photos with both my OM-1n
> and
> OM-10 and if you aren't really careful sometimes the 4% difference can
> mean the difference between an object straying into the FOV or not,
> hence making the difference between a good photo or a spoilt one!
> Personally I just can understand why Olympus didn't lump for a bit more
> FOV. Apart from that rant the E-300 seems very nice. It still hasn't
> swayed me to the Dark Side though..... ;-)
>
> All the best,
> Gareth.
>
> Moose wrote:
>> Single digit OMs are 97%, double digit are 93%. Somewhere in the mid
>> 90s
>> is pretty typical of film SLRs. 100% would be bad for slides, as the
>> mount always loses some of the frame.
>>
>> E-1 = 100%, 20D 95%, 1D Mk. II 100%, D70 95%, D2H 100%. 100% should be
>> good for digital in theory, but in practice a little slack might be
>> nice. Looks like Oly, C and N put a little margin for error in the low
>> end bodies and none in the pro bodies.
>>
>> Moose
>>
>> Gareth.J.Martin wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It certainly looks and interesting camera. One thing that bothers me
>>> was
>>> this quote:
>>>
>>> "Subjects framed within the EVOLT optical viewfinder are 94% centered
>>> for accurate composition."
>>>
>>> Is this trying to say that only 94% of the overall frame the lens is
>>> capable of photgraphing is visible through the viewfinder?
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Gareth.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Gareth.J.Martin
>
> Research Postgraduate
> School of Geographical Sciences
> University of Bristol
> University Road
> Bristol
> BS8 1SS
>
> g.j.martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> bluesteel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> attackwarningred@xxxxxxxxxxx
> eclipsing.binary@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> NE NLCOG - The amateur NLC observing group:
> http://freespace.virgin.net/eclipsing.binary
>
> Support Mozilla Firefox:
> http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/
>
>
> "The only way of discovering the limits of the possible
> is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."
>
> Arthur C. Clarke's Second Law.
>
> "There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do not
> wave in a vacuum."
>
> Arthur C. Clarke
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|