Is full-frame really that dramaticly better?

Ziffle wrote in post #11052582
many photogs may not want to admit this .... if they look in the mirror - there is the answer to better images.

*crobs808 removes body cap from 5DII and looks at mirror assembly, but does not see anything* hehe

mattjns93 wrote in post #11052835
Interesting. Where does a APS-H 1D2/3 fit in there?

100% 100%

I do not see any advantage to seeing 100% vs 97% in the viewfinder. It is not like you are going to take a shot, get back to your computer, open it up and hate it because there are an extra 100 pixels around the edge that you did not see when shooting. In fact, I'd probably be happy about it. the only time I can see this affecting the results is in portrait shooting where you have a small background/muslin and maybe you can see the edge of the paper...just crop! You aren't going to have a noticeable quality drop.

mattjns93 wrote in post #11052835
Interesting. Where does a APS-H 1D2/3 fit in there?

This might help, but this was not the exact table I was using.

http://www.neocamera.c​om …e.php?id=viewfi​nder_sizes

crobs808 wrote in post #11053001
I do not see any advantage to seeing 100% vs 97% in the viewfinder. It is not like you are going to take a shot, get back to your computer, open it up and hate it because there are an extra 100 pixels around the edge that you did not see when shooting. In fact, I'd probably be happy about it. the only time I can see this affecting the results is in portrait shooting where you have a small background/muslin and maybe you can see the edge of the paper...just crop! You aren't going to have a noticeable quality drop.

Back in the film days, that edge was "cropped" off again by the negative carrier or slide frame anyway. It was only a groady situation on the very cheap cameras that offered only 80% of the actual view.

It's not much problem with digital, and the LCD does provide a 100% view, anyway.

The reason why you don't get 100% on any but the top cameras, btw, is because a 100% view requires dead-accurate 3-D machining of the bay that the focusing screen fits into as well as dead-accurate 3-D machining of the focusing screen, or a lot of very close-order shim-work. That adds up to considerable cost in machining and assembly.

It's much cheaper to be dead-accurate in only the dimension critical for focusing and allow more tolerance in the other two dimensions. By masking the frame a few percent, they gain tolerance.

"I do not see any advantage to seeing 100% vs 97% in the viewfinder".

I agree we can live with it, but it does show sloppy design and botched manufacture. A 100% viewfinder is not rocket science. Makes me wonder what else has received the same lack of care and attention.

Lowner wrote in post #11053278
"I do not see any advantage to seeing 100% vs 97% in the viewfinder".

I agree we can live with it, but it does show sloppy design and botched manufacture. A 100% viewfinder is not rocket science. Makes me wonder what else has received the same lack of care and attention.

Historically, only two or three of the top manufacturers ever provided 100% viewfinders, and then only in the very top model of camera. Nikon in the F, Canon in the F-1. Leica provided onl the Leicaflex. Alpa, perhaps. I can't recall if the OM-1 was 100%. But that's about all.

It's not rocket science, but it is expensive.

In the days of film, the argument was that slide mounts covered part of the frame, so viewfinders needed to be around 98%. I never believed it then either!

RDKirk wrote in post #11053305
Historically, only two or three of the top manufacturers ever provided 100% viewfinders, and then only in the very top model of camera. Nikon in the F, Canon in the F-1. Leica provided onl the Leicaflex. Alpa, perhaps. I can't recall if the OM-1 was 100%. But that's about all.

It's not rocket science, but it is expensive.

I agree, and I thought somewhere that I read that the pentaprism in the 7D is larger than that found on the FF bodies, and they had to enlarge that upper area to accommodate that, all to get the 100% view. But I cannot seem to find that article now.

SkipD wrote in post #11040582
That cannot happen.

The field of view will be smaller, but the sensor-to-subject distance won't be any closer.

Yea, yea. I was wrong. Just keep rubbing it in.

Here's what I was talking about....

Sigma 50 1.4 at MFD on 5d2...

crobs808 wrote in post #11040538
But the problem there is not the FF to blame, but that you are trying to make the FF use a lens that it does not suit it the best for the subject you wan to shoot, "flowers", per your example.

....

Point is that I can do better close-ups with EF lenses on 1.6X crop than FF and there are times that is an advantage to me.

Ok. One point, albeit obscure, for the crop sensor but, I couldn't care less That's why they make different focal length lenses. If I only owned a crop or only a FF, I doubt I would have the same lens line up so, where I would shoot on a crop with a 85, I would be using a 135 on a FF. I assume, all else being equal, the subject would fill the frame, equally on both.

^ - may be obscure to you, but its really nice to be able to take a close-up shot like this with a zoom lens without ext tubes when your hiking. Taken with my old XT....