96% coverage in viewfinder...why not a 100%

Hi, anyone knows the technical explanation why the viewfinder most often (if ever?) has a less than 100% coverage?

Because there is a very high amount of precision necessary to get a 100% view viewfinder, which no doubt costs more, and also some allowance was made for the amount that most printing machines crop from an image. And for that matter how much of the image is masked in a slide mount.

---

Best regards, John

Thank you for your reply John - I guess you are right. It's just that I have been struggling a bit with pictures where the intended cropping/framing dependend on e.g. a good sense of surrounding lines and structures. More than a few times I have discovered the edge of a drainpipe, some electrical wiring, the odd branch etc. in my pictures - even though I'm sure that I made a good effort to exclude them...so excluded them in the viewfinder but, alas, not in the captured image

---

Best regards,
John
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jospan
K10D; smc P-FA 50mm F1.4; smc P-DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL; smc P-F 70-210/4-5.6 ED

It can indeed be a problem, especially with film, but at least in a DSLR we can adjust the final crop in Photoshop.

---

Best regards, John

Yes, I know - I simply try to get it as close to 'right' in camera the first time: exposure, white balance and composition. I feel there is a certain satisfaction in a picture coming out of camera exactly as envisioned. I don't mind if my only post processing is converting RAW to .jpg

---

Best regards,
John
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jospan
K10D; smc P-FA 50mm F1.4; smc P-DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL; smc P-F 70-210/4-5.6 ED

jospan,

I share your feeling "I don't mind if my only post processing is converting RAW to .jpg"

It still gives me a great kick when that is all I have to do, instead of copious tinkering at the computer. When one works with them all day, it is nice not to have to go back to them for too much to do with one's hobby!

I agree. Having spent most of my life (photographically speaking) using slide film, where you have just the one chance to take the photograph as you want it, I try to do the same with digital.

---

Hyram

Bodies: K20D (2), K10D, Super A, ME Super, Auto 110 SLR, X70, Optio P70
Pentax Glass: DA* 300, DA* 60-250, DA* 50-135, DA* 16-50, DA 70 Ltd, FA 31 Ltd, DA 35 Ltd, DA 18-55 (2), DA 12-24, DA 10-17, M 200, A 35-70, M 40, M 28, Converter-A 2X-S, 1.4X-S, AF 1.7, Pentax-110 50, Pentax-110 24
Other Glass: Sigma 105 macro, Sigma-A APO 75-300
Flash: Metz 58 AF-1 P, Pentax AF160FC ringflash, Pentax AF280T

People seem to cite the "accuracy argument" but I expect that it has more to do with the cost and weight penalties associated with the far larger prism that's required to accomplish a 100% view. I know the finder on my Nikon F2 weighed in heavier and was far larger than the equivalent finder for the LX.