Right, I've spent the afternoon shooting with a Canon 1000D and one of my 35mm Minolta bodies.
It's been quite interesting.
I was using an 18mm-55mm zoom on the Canon, and a 28mm (with a few 50mm at the end of the day) on the Minolta.

My 28mm felt much wider than the 18mm setting on the Canon.
The viewfinder though... I'm poking at the images now, and there's a few which unwanted things have crept into frame, when I remember clearly framing up to avoid them (a man's leg on the right of frame in one shot, a flag pole on the left in another). Certainly going from the 35mm viewfinder to the 1000d was a surprise. I didn't mind the DSLR 'finder at all, and I suppose I don't, but it made me appreciate just how large and bright the 35mm one is.

Is it the case that some DSLR 'finders don't give you as much of a full frame as perhaps you'd want?
I remember shooting video with the venerable Canon XL1 back in uni, and it was exactly the same thing. Frame it up with the 'finder, then wonder why it wasn't right on playback.

I'm picking up the film stuff tomorrow afternoon, so I'll gladly post some compare/contrast type images later.

It is common for even SLRs to not show the entire frame in the viewfinder. If you look in the specs, it should say somewhere how much of the frame is shown. I remember that on many occasions I have struggled to fit something in, only to find that there is loads of room either end (usually) when the picture has been printed.

Having said that, if you go to a [LIFTED] place to get a film developed and printed, they'll happily cut the extra off for you. I once took a picture of a statue in a church and you can clearly see about a clear foot of wall above the head on the negative, but the print had half of the head cut off.

The 'finder on my Minolta gives me 95% coverage, same as the 1000D apparently.
I'm sure I don't make as many mistakes with it. I'll have to do some tests and check it out. Maybe I'm just subconsciously used to it on the Minolta.

I think the pentaprism on my Samsing is 95% field of view

What? Alex is using a digital camera?

*faints*

Exactly why I went full frame.

Full frame as in the sensor size? So do you get 100% field of view in the viewfinder with a full frame camera? I honestly didnt know that. You learn something new everyday lol

I did look it up and noticed the 5D only has 96% field of view strangely enough.

It's the work one!

Gathering some pictures for something called SeaFest that's happening in September but the site goes up next week and we need images.
Of course, it's grey and cloudy and the work camera's lens is nude. As we're a coastal zoo, I keep banging on about a CPL for it, as most of what gets shot is in or near the water, or both and behind glass. Hence I'm shooting with the 35mm too for more variety in lens choice and the fact I've got filters for it.

Yes, only the 1D and 1Ds have 100% viewfinder coverage (my 5D MkII has 98%), but I was talking about the viewfinder size, not the coverage - as it's full frame, you get the same size viewfinder as you get in 35mm film SLRs, rather than the smaller one in cropped sensor SLRs.

My D3 has 100%.

Mark

I just KNEW you'd mention that! For the price you paid, I'd expect nothing less... (8+P

Well, I'd hate to be a disappointment.

Mark

I am waiting for my local charity shop to put out some of the Zenits they seem to gather from time to time. I’ll be buying one. I want to use something wholly mechanical, and as a Zenit was my first camera, I thought I’d go full circle and try one out.

Sounds like a nice idea. My local independent shop has an old medium format in the window second hand - I keep being tempted. I may just pick it up one day!

I had a Bronica medium format years ago, fantastic camera, fantastic shots, people presumed I was a pro and stood aside for me.
Problem was it weighed a ton. If you've got the muscles get one, you'll love it.