Hasselblad prism brightness vs. WLF

[crumpet8]

I had some major issues focusing in the studio today when shooting portraits and still life with my 500cm and various filters :/

I am aware that I should get a better screen, but I was wondering whether or not it's easier to focus using a WLF or the prism I currently have (pic attached).

I have a chimney finder as well but I struggle to focus with it due to handheld movement when focusing so it's not an options when shooting people.

 

[bdial]

One of the things I like about using a prism is that it seems to give better contrast on the screen, because back light is blocked better.
I use the newer PM prisms though, I don't know if they might be brighter than the one you show.

Are you using the magnifier with the WLF? When I use a WLF, I generally have it up all the time and I focus and compose with it.

If you're using a standard screen, that is problem 1, IMHO. I've never liked them. I've not used an acute matte, but the micro-prism or split image screens are vastly superior to the standard screen (IMO).

It takes a bit to learn to move opposite to what you see when using a WL or chimney, but after a while it becomes second nature.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use a PME 45 degree prism with the Acute Matte screen. After the first time I looked though it, I never went back to the WLF.

 

[Alan9940]

I have the PM45 prism with Acute Matte screen and even through these old eyes it's very easy to focus. I much prefer the prism to the WLF.

 

[mike c]

Crumpet8, I have one of those meter prisms, it worked well when shooting weddings with flash,after I stopped weddings I bought a Acu-matt screen and use the WLF and a tripod.

 

[MattKing]

You say you are working in the studio with filters. What filters?

 

[crumpet8]

One of the things I like about using a prism is that it seems to give better contrast on the screen, because back light is blocked better. (IMOsecond nature.

Back light was not a problem due to it being studio work.

I don't have a WLF, the question is leading to whether I should get one. I had a micro prism circle screen on a previous blad and that was my favourite, now I have a split image screen.

I do believe the newer prisms would be brighter but they are much more expensive...

 

[crumpet8]

You say you are working in the studio with filters. What filters?

Hey Matt, everything really. Yesterday I used a green filter that cuts 1.5 stops and a red filter that is similiar.

 

[crumpet8]

I got my hands on a newer pm prism and better screen today, the Screen made the most difference but the different finders make a difference as well. My old prism is the worst, but the newer one is just slightly better. The WLF was the darkest due to light pollution but with the loupe up as well it was the easiest to focus with in dark conditions. I think more because of the extra magnification rather than it being noticeably brighter.

 

[MattKing]

Hey Matt, everything really. Yesterday I used a green filter that cuts 1.5 stops and a red filter that is similiar.

I've never been able to focus easily with filters like that on my SLRs . Try adding a bright, narrow beam flashlight to your studio kit - shine the light, focus, turn off the light, shoot.

 

[crumpet8]

I've never been able to focus easily with filters like that on my SLRs . Try adding a bright, narrow beam flashlight to your studio kit - shine the light, focus, turn off the light, shoot.

Yeah, I have one in my LF kit so will use it next time seems like a bit of a logistical nightmare if I'm shooting handheld in studio.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Another vote for the Acute-matte screen. I had one in my 500 C/M and it made all the difference in the world. It's about 1.5-2 stops brighter than the standard screen. If you're using the meter in the prism, then you'll need to have it re-calibrated, or get one of the newer prisms that are designed for the Acute-Matte screen.

 

[crumpet8]

Another vote for the Acute-matte screen. I had one in my 500 C/M and it made all the difference in the world. It's about 1.5-2 stops brighter than the standard screen. If you're using the meter in the prism, then you'll need to have it re-calibrated, or get one of the newer prisms that are designed for the Acute-Matte screen.

The question is not about screens but about finders.

 

[Chris Livsey]

The NC2 prism, made by Novoflex in Germany has the reputation of being the brightest. As above the exclusion of ambient light contributes to the superiority of the prisms over the WLF but the chimney finders where there is no light robbing prism should be brightest. I say should as these things are subjective and personal preference is important. The lack of the reversed image can be very disconcerting if used to a prism and vice versa of course.
You are robbing yourself of 1.5 stops with the filter so if you are locked down it would seem obvious to focus without the filter then carefully attach for the exposure.
You say you don't like a chimney finder hand held, I'm the opposite, gently rocking back and forward allows a fine focus without touching the lens and that suits my "style".
Probably the only advantage the WLF has is its lack of weight and compactness for travel.

 

[mdarnton]

After trying to get friendly with both prism and WL finder, I finally arrived at the chimney as being the best method for me. I particularly like the continuously-variable diopter setting.

 

[crumpet8]

The NC2 prism, made by Novoflex in Germany has the reputation of being the brightest. As above the exclusion of ambient light contributes to the superiority of the l.

After trying to get friendly with both prism and WL finder, I finally arrived at the chimney as being the best method for me. I particularly like the continuously-variable diopter setting.

Thanks I should spend more time with my tower finder. Something about it is so much more difficult than the WLF, I struggle to keep vertical lines and my subject in the focusing circle...