View Finder vs. Image Field-Of-View!

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?

 

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.

 

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.