Bjorn Hands On D700 Tests and a 90% Viewfinder

Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
4,507
Location
Haverhill, MA
Bjorn has received a production D700 for testing and apparently will be reporting the findings at the Nikon Gear Forum...I will provide a link below.

One thing of interest....the viewfinder is not 95%, but rather 90%...identical to the D200 viewfinder coverage area. (at least that appears to be what he's stating).

"Thirdly, here is the definite answer to the question of viewfinder coverage: the 95% figure is NOT a planar measure as it should be, but linear. Hence actual frame coverage is 90%. This figure will vary slightly with the actual lens used. I tested with the 45/2.8 PC-E. Traditionally, frame coverage is specified for a 50 mm lens at infinity.According to the D200 manual, coverage is 0.95 H x 0.95 W = 0.9 area. Just checked. So the figure is the same as the D700".

Honestly, I'm not at all sure that the viewfinder percentage is any real type of show stopper. I think one quickly adjusts to whatever it is that they are working with.

He also indicates that NX2 is required to open the RAW files.



The link to the thread is as follows:

http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=10771.0
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
4,519
Location
Suwanee, GA
Very interesting to read about his testing the D700 for battery life with it in the FREEZER!!!
 
P

Paul.r.lindqvist

Guest
Well maybe not a show stopper, but would annoy me. Since im shooting mostly manual and i have grown custom to the D3 finder. The real show stopper for me, is that its in a D300 body. Layout and controls is pita.
 
N

Nuteshack

Guest
Well maybe not a show stopper, but would annoy me. Since im shooting mostly manual and i have grown custom to the D3 finder. The real show stopper for me, is that its in a D300 body. Layout and controls is pita.
700 is thicker alloy and better weather sealing..and it has the little d3 control puck on that back as well....;-)
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
2,450
Location
Bay Area, USA
I don't get the point of making cameras without a 100% viewfinder in the digital era. I could understand that if you're shooting slide film, you want less than 100% since the edges will be lost when you slide mount it, so a 95% finder would be perfect. But for digital, why not 100%?
 
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
1,176
Location
England
I don't get the point of making cameras without a 100% viewfinder in the digital era. I could understand that if you're shooting slide film, you want less than 100% since the edges will be lost when you slide mount it, so a 95% finder would be perfect. But for digital, why not 100%?
Several reasons:

1) Cost. It takes more effort to align all the components so that what you see through the viewfinder is the true field.
2) Apparently the dust removal mechanism has some gubbins that obscures a bit of the edge of the frame, making 100% impossible. That might explain why the D3 does not have dust removal.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
4,553
Several reasons:

2) Apparently the dust removal mechanism has some gubbins that obscures a bit of the edge of the frame, making 100% impossible. That might explain why the D3 does not have dust removal.
This keeps me wondering. The sensor and the dust vibration widgets are behind the shutter, aren't they? And the focusing screen, prism and mirror are in front of the shutter.

If I had to make a guess, the 95% viewfinder is a marketing and product placement issue first, cost issue secondly and the popup flash might be the third reason. I don't buy the dust buster thing at all, doesn't make sense to me.
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
26,905
Location
Clearwater, Florida
honestly... and i do respect Bjorn,
but, i'd be SHOCKED if the D700 really had a 90% coverage viewfinder
if that really IS true.... Nikon will look foolish for putting out their second-most expensive camera with this over(under)sight in design and manufacturing
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
2,450
Location
Bay Area, USA
i'd be SHOCKED if the D700 really had a 90% coverage viewfinder
if that really IS true.... Nikon will look foolish for putting out their second-most expensive camera with this over(under)sight in design and manufacturing
The coverage difference between the D700 and D3 viewfinder is quite huge. 90% is beleivable.

Viewfinder comparison from dcwatch Japanese website.
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2008/07/07/8793.html

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

D700

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

D3
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
26,905
Location
Clearwater, Florida
well....
if this bears out to be true in production cameras..... this is a big mistake for Nikon
no one wants to pay >3K USD for a body and has a SUBstandard (at least as far as COVERAGE is concerned) viewfinder
 
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
2,378
Location
Eden, NY
The viewfinder shows 95% of the frame horizontally and 95% of the frame vertically.
That equates to (.95*.95) = 90% of the frame area.

Personally I prefer the way Nikon specified it and not Bjorn's take on it (Bjorn thought they should have specified area (90%) and not linear (95%) percentages).
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
1,027
Location
Annandale, VA
The viewfinder shows 95% of the frame horizontally and 95% of the frame vertically.
That equates to (.95*.95) = 90% of the frame area.

Personally I prefer the way Nikon specified it and not Bjorn's take on it (Bjorn thought they should have specified area (90%) and not linear (95%) percentages).
Good point. You can make figures say just about anything you want. .95 x .95 is to me a more practical measure. As for the bunny shots, why start off with a cropped image of the bunny in the first place? I would never shoot an image without some edge room to begin with.

Here

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=28574988

is the start of a side discussion at DPReview which includes Thom Hogan which takes a more objective look at the situation.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
4,553
The coverage difference between the D700 and D3 viewfinder is quite huge. 90% is beleivable.
Those two sample images are nonsense. The magnification difference depicted is completely wrong. Nikon (and other camera manufacturers) have always given the viewfinder coverage number as a linear figure. Ditto for the F100 with the same 95%.

Doing these comparisons one must remember that 95% of a big and bright thing is still a lot more than 100% of a small and dim one (D700 vs D300).
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
4,553
.. no one wants to pay >3K USD for a body and has a SUBstandard (at least as far as COVERAGE is concerned) viewfinder
I want to. I see this camera as a replacement for my D200 and the viewfinder coverage is the same. I will not lose sleep over it.
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
2,450
Location
Bay Area, USA
Doing these comparisons one must remember that 95% of a big and bright thing is still a lot more than 100% of a small and dim one (D700 vs D300).
Yes the viewfinder on the D700 is still almost double the size compared to that of the D300, but at least on the D300, you know what your final image will look like. Whereas on the D700, your picture will have extraneous stuff outside your intended scene. There could be a scary clown in your picture that you didn't originally see in your viewfinder when you snapped the picture.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
4,553
... could be a scary clown in your picture that you didn't originally see in your viewfinder when you snapped the picture.
I'm used to the scary clowns. I have them in every picture since the early 90's. All those scary clowns in my F100, D100 and D200 images. Usch. I'm so scared.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
462
Location
Kingsville, Ohio
Doing the math it should be:

D700 $3000/$5000 for D3 == 60 percent cost with 90 percent of the viewfinder.

We're getting 30 percent more viewfinder than what we are paying for.
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
26,905
Location
Clearwater, Florida
The viewfinder shows 95% of the frame horizontally and 95% of the frame vertically.
That equates to (.95*.95) = 90% of the frame area.

Personally I prefer the way Nikon specified it and not Bjorn's take on it (Bjorn thought they should have specified area (90%) and not linear (95%) percentages).
ah.....
now THAT DOES make a difference
i appreciate the reminder of my past mathematics knowledge... :biggrin:
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom