Zitat von Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Quoting "keller.schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I have always argued the *practicality* of any 100% viewfinder. A 95% > finder > > already shows *almost all* of the image: 95% of 24x36 is 23.4x35.1 > > mm (for APS-C it is 23.5x15.7 vs. 22.9x15.3). No matter what application > you > > are > > thinking of for either a negative or a slide, you will have a hard time > > actually *using* more than 95% of it. A slide frame will cut away about 7% > > and > > any lab (including home printing) will probably cut away more. In that > sense > > it > > is *correct* to show 95% as it gives you a better indication of what you > will > > eventually get than 100%. > > Most people won't be wanting negatives or slides though. And home printing > should still get all of the frame: I don't think any inkjets crop the > picture. > For on screen display too you will not lose anything so to me a non-100% > viewfinder on DSLRs does not make sense. >
Yes, I realise I was thinking of conventional printing on (light sensitive) paper rather than inkjet printing. But then again, once you send your digital files to a lab to 'print', they will crop. Sven
