Why not all VF with 100% ?

[Solarflare]

Okay, I have a newbie question I cant find an answer to.

Why are there viewfinders that do not show you 100% of the picture you're going to shoot ? For example my D5100 doesnt.

It just makes the viewfinder massively less useful and makes no sense to me. Why would anyone do this in the first place ? It makes it impossible to carefully "compose" your picture in the viewfinder. For snapshots, its good enough, of course.

 

[enzodm]

Not sure if there is some technological reason behind.
100% or so can be obtained with pro cameras (DSLR Viewfinder Sizes | Neocamera) . Non pros will gain something by having a larger view - some room for small corrections to horizon for example, that make you crop away part of the image. It would be worst if on the other side.
Consider also that even depth of field is not precisely displayed - typical viewfinders shows at max f/4 or so, so you cannot fully trust focus when at larger apertures (with regular focusing screens at least).

 

[TheBiles]

Impossible to carefully compose because you're missing 3% of the image in a uniform border? Crop it if you can't take that small amount into consideration!

 

[jaomul]

The glass and size of glass pentaprisms etc are expensive and while electronics come down in price the glass doesn't. Sense full vf not on cheaper cameras though all the electronics filter down.

 

[kundalini]

In the case of the D700, they crammed the guts of the D3 into the chassis of the D300. Something had to be compromized. I'm glad they chose the viewfinder. Missing 5% is not a bother since I generally shoot a little fat anyway. Rotating and cropping are part of my post work.

 

[Solarflare]

Impossible to carefully compose because you're missing 3% of the image in a uniform border? [...]

5% in my case. And yes, if I want to have full control, thats enough to get stuff into the image that I dont want there, thus I have to switch to lifeview all the time.

The glass and size of glass pentaprisms etc are expensive and while electronics come down in price the glass doesn't. Sense full vf not on cheaper cameras though all the electronics filter down.

Is 95% instead of 100% really such a huge saving ?

 

[o hey tyler]

Impossible to carefully compose because you're missing 3% of the image in a uniform border? [...]

5% in my case. And yes, if I want to have full control, thats enough to get stuff into the image that I dont want there, thus I have to switch to lifeview all the time.

Then in my eyes you have two options (maybe 3):

1. Crop your image in post because you are an aspiring pro photographer that needs to have the utmost precision in your work

2. Don't worry about it because you only shoot JPEGs in camera and you're really just a hobbyist. No one's going to notice that minute element on the edge of the frame.

(3.) Dump $1,000+ into a DSLR with a 100% viewfinder.

My 5D has a less than 100% viewfinder, but I've never once had an issue with it. You don't realize how small 5% spread around 4 sides of a viewfinder is.

 

[fjrabon]

Because they invented photoshop, which has this neato thing called cropping!

Additionally, basically every photographer I know shoots with at least a TINY bit of fat around the edges so they can rotate if need be. Just remember, you can always crop stuff you want out, but you can't 'add on' to a picture you shot too tight.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

Yeah I don't see what the big deal is. It's about 5% in the D5000 as well. After using several dSLRs in the past, you sort of just get used to it.

Nikon D5000 | 18-55mm AF-S VR | 50mm 1.8G | HB-47 Hood

 

[Fred Berg]

I shoot film with an SLR that has 92% viewfinder visibility, and obviously no live view to fall back on. I'm happy with this and think this only becomes a problem if you worry too much about it. Get used to the viewfinder you have to work with, just as generations of photographers have done before you, and you'll be surprised how quickly this problem disappears.

 

[enzodm]

The glass and size of glass pentaprisms etc are expensive and while electronics come down in price the glass doesn't. Sense full vf not on cheaper cameras though all the electronics filter down.

Actually, entry level cameras (including OP's D5100) have pentamirror and not pentaprism. Not much glass inside, to save money and weight.
This is a comparison of 95% vs 100%: http://www.nikond700.com/gfx/D700/review/Viewfinder_coverage.jpg . Not something to worry about.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

Get used to the viewfinder you have to work with, just as generations of photographers have done before you, and you'll be surprised how quickly this problem disappears.

I agree with this statement 110%. I try to use the limited view to my advantage. I know that if something is just barely missing the viewfinder, it will still be in the end result.

Nikon D5000 | 18-55mm AF-S VR | 50mm 1.8G | HB-47 Hood

 

[davisphotos]

I just got a 5D Mark3, which has a 100% viewfinder, which is a very nice luxury, but I haven't had too many issues with the 95% viewfinders on my Mark2 and original 5D. I have played around with a digital Rebel, and the tiny viewfinder is not exactly great, but it isn't much of a hindrance.

 

[tirediron]

I actually prefer a <100% viewfinder; it means if I compose a little tightly, then I've still got some space (not a lot, but some) to work with in the pixel room.

 

[12sndsgood]

i try to look at it as framing space. if you size your image exactly to the limits of the photo then your going to have some issues if you want to frame it up. i just consider that little 5% portion as a little saftey net for when i do commpose to close.