Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site asgb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!bmcg!asgb!mike
From: mike@asgb.UUCP (Mike Rosenlof)
Newsgroups: net.rec.photo
Subject: re: view area vs. film area
Message-ID: <660@asgb.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Apr-85 12:40:35 EST
Article-I.D.: asgb.660
Posted: Mon Apr 22 12:40:35 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Apr-85 03:46:19 EST
Organization: The Wombat's Lair
Lines: 29

<>

> Anyone know why non-professional cameras offer a diminished view of the
> picture than will appear on the negative, sometimes as little as 90% of
> the negative area?  Why do only professional camera's offer a relatively
> full view of the picture area?
> 
> Canon AE-1 finder area 91% x 92% of film area
> Nikon FE   finder area 93% x 92% of film area
> Canon F-1  finder area 96% x 98% of film area
> Nikon F3   finder area 98% x 99% of film area
> 
There are two main reasons, the first is size.  A screen which covers
100% of the negative is bigger than one which covers only 90%.  In the
examples, the F-1 and F3 are both larger than the AE-1 and FE.  Larger
also means heavier which is a bigerg disadvantage in the "mass marker"
cameras than the "pro" models.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd bet
that the Pantax LX - definitely a professional camera - doesn't cover
100% of the field of view, mostly because of its size.

The second reason is manufacturing tolerances.  A slightly diminished
view allows a little more slop in aligning the viewing system.  By
easing the tolerances, the price can be brought down.  


Mike Rosenlof				   ihnp4!sabre!\
					hplabs!sdcrdcf!-bmcg!asgb!mike
		    { ihnp4, ucbvax, allegra }!sdcsvax!/
Burroughs Advanced Systems Group 		     Boulder, Colorado