View Finder vs. Image Field-Of-View!

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Doug Mitton, Dec 13, 2004.

  1. Doug Mitton

    Doug Mitton Guest

    There have been a few interesting discussions lately and I'm curious
    to see if this topic has any insights. Also, I'm not sure I'm using
    the correct terminology and I hope this is not one of those
    start-a-war topics but I'm posting anyway! :)

    I don't remember this being an issue when I used a film SLR many moons
    ago BUT it seems to have a noticable impact on my digital images. I'm
    talking about the discrepancy between the viewfinder framed image and
    the captured image field-of-view ... on my Digital Rebel I notice I
    have more picture in the captured image than I do in the view finder.
    I tried an experiment today using a ruler and 3 different lenses and
    the measurements indicate a +5% to +8% larger captured image.

    I've seen several discussions concerning digital darkroom processing
    but I have also seen arguments for captured scenes that require no
    processing. In this case if I take the time to setup a scene and
    capture it, the added "field of view" distracts from what I'm trying
    to accomplish (I think anyway).

    So, any comments, pointers, opinions or insights?!?!

    PS. I'm now getting into the habit of framing my pictures even closer
    than I normally would BUT is this "problem" common to all dSLRs and to
    a greater or lesser degree?
    Doug Mitton, Dec 13, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Doug Mitton

    jfitz Guest

    This is typical of consumer level digital and 35mm film SLRs. Canon list
    the Digital Rebel as having approximately 95% coverage. You will usually
    find 100% coverage only in the very top of the line cameras. I never
    considered this a very big deal. Keep in mind that you are going to crop
    the image anyway if you print standard print sizes.
    jfitz, Dec 14, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Doug Mitton

    Matt Ion Guest

    I don't see that this is a particular problem... it would be if it
    captured LESS area than the viewfinder showed. I'd suspect that a
    little extra is intentially capture to compensate for any other
    anomalies (cheap lens misalignment, maybe?) that might otherwise result
    in you not catching something that you thought you did.

    Come to think of it, I do recall thinking more than once that my old
    RebelG 35mm showed a little more on the film frame than I actually saw
    through the viewfinder, but like I say, I expect this is a design factor.
    Matt Ion, Dec 14, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.