Pentax 67: Pop Up WLVF vs Chimney

[yessammassey]

True waist level composing would be nice, but with such a dim screen the fully enclosed chimney finder seems like it would be useful in more situations (sunny outdoors, etc).

Does the chimney have any kind of eye relief, or is it socket-to-cup only if you want to see the whole frame? Held up to the eye, Is it easy to see everything from a neutral position or does the magnification mean you have to look up/down/left/right to see the frame edges? Can you focus accurately from the vantage of a few inches above the chimney eyepiece?

And is the pop up WLVF really very prone to light intrusion?

A bit of background:
Now that I’ve been using a Nikon F3 with HP finder I’m realizing just what a chore it is to have to smush my eye to the prism on the 67. And with all that I still can’t see the frame edges on all four sides unless perfectly centering the eyeball, and even then it’s only showing 90% of the full frame!

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I don't get why the P67 has a reputation for being dim, if I take the prism off mine I see the screen is every bit as bright as my (non-acute matte) Hasselblad, and my Mamiya C330.

 

[abruzzi]

Yeah, mine is plenty bright. I’d also add that the pop up waistlevel finder does a pretty good job blocking external light when the magnifier is in place. It fully covers the upper opening, unlike my Yashica-Mat (that’s dim) which has a pop up magnifier shaped like a popsicle and doesn’t block light.

 

[yessammassey]

Hmmm. I find it at least a little dimmer than my 500CM with brite-matte. I can’t compare directly but feel like the RB67 I once owned had an appreciably brighter screen.

So I have here a user saying the WLVF is a good choice and light-tight enough. Anyone with experience with the chimney finder care to comment on its pros and cons? I am really looking for a viewfinder option that is less cramped than the prism.

 

[skysh4rk]

I don't get why the P67 has a reputation for being dim, if I take the prism off mine I see the screen is every bit as bright as my (non-acute matte) Hasselblad, and my Mamiya C330.

Agreed. I think the Pentax 6x7/67 has one of the best focusing screens in medium format. I much prefer it to the Acute Matte D in my old Hasselblad.

And is the pop up WLVF really very prone to light intrusion?

The WLF on the Pentax 6x7 is as good as any medium format camera I've used; I don't find stray light to be a problem and the magnification means that I prefer it to chimney finder options. That said, vertical framing presents obvious issues, so I use the eye-level finder exclusively.

Maybe consider buying the eyecup for the prism? That helps a lot with stray light for eye-level finder. These can be picked up o eBay.

 

[voceumana]

I wear glasses (always) and have an F3HP, and FM2n, and a Pentax 67II and find the following:

1. Easy to see corner to corner on the F3HP.

2. Easy to see corner to corner with the Pentax 67II with prism though the corners have a slight darkening. I have to "smush" my face the same amount for the F3 and the Pentax; Very slight movement lets me see all the corners without the darkening, and even with the darkening, I can see well enough to compose. The Pentax is certainly bright enough for me.

3. Quite a lot of vignetting on the FM2n, so it's hard to see the corners without moving quite a bit.

I find it easier to see with the Pentax 67II with the prism than with the folding WLF. I've thought of getting the rigid magnifying hood, but haven't found one yet.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There was already a similar discussion in late May of this year. You need your eye right up to the chimney finder. It has an adjustable diopter magnifier and screens out all side light, and magnifies the entire screen. But the folding hood can be used waist level, and has a basic flip-down lens which magnifies just the center portion. Both are plenty bright, provided you're using one of their faster lenses, of course, and IF stray light isn't getting in from the top with the folding version. For dim light work, the chimney finder is the brightest option they have. Prism finders are more convenient however.

 

[GLS]

I think the Pentax 6x7/67 has one of the best focusing screens in medium format. I much prefer it to the Acute Matte D in my old Hasselblad.

This hasn't been my experience at all. The Acute Matte D in my 501CM is MUCH brighter (by at least three stops in my estimation, possibly slightly more) than the screen in my Pentax 6x7 MLU. It is also more evenly illuminated, and easier to focus with, especially in dim light. Frankly I'm mystified how anyone could find the reverse to be the case.

 

[skysh4rk]

This hasn't been my experience at all. The Acute Matte D in my 501CM is MUCH brighter (by at least three stops in my estimation, possibly slightly more) than the screen in my Pentax 6x7 MLU. It is also more evenly illuminated, and easier to focus with, especially in dim light. Frankly I'm mystified how anyone could find the reverse to be the case.

You might very well be right that the Hasselblad screen is objectively brighter, but I found the Acute Matte D more difficult for determining precise focus (compared to, for instance, P67 or Bronica SQ-series cameras), so less useful for my own real-world photography. The extra stops are worthless to me if it is at the expense of focusing accuracy, as I like to use larger apertures. If you tend to use smaller apertures or focus on landscapes, I could see where the Acute Matte D could be preferred though.

 

[GLS]

You might very well be right that the Hasselblad screen is objectively brighter, but I found the Acute Matte D more difficult for determining precise focus (compared to, for instance, P67 or Bronica SQ-series cameras), so less useful for my own real-world photography. The extra stops are worthless to me if it is at the expense of focusing accuracy, as I like to use larger apertures. If you tend to use smaller apertures or focus on landscapes, I could see where the Acute Matte D could be preferred though.

I've seen various people say they struggle with focusing on the Acute Matte D type screens, and again I must confess these reports mystify me, as I have no problem whatsoever doing so. Indeed, the microprism collar + split-image circle on my screen makes it a breeze IMO. In comparison the microprism image break-up on my Pentax screen is more subtle and thus harder to notice small deviations from optimal focus, and the dimmer nature of that screen only compounds the problem. Perhaps you (and others) refer specifically to the differences between the plain peripheral areas of the screens? If so I can't say I've noticed an issue there either.

Ah well, c'est la vie.

 

[skysh4rk]

I've seen various people say they struggle with focusing on the Acute Matte D type screens, and again I must confess these reports mystify me, as I have no problem whatsoever doing so. Indeed, the microprism collar + split-image circle on my screen makes it a breeze IMO. In comparison the microprism image break-up on my Pentax screen is more subtle and thus harder to notice small deviations from optimal focus, and the dimmer nature of that screen only compounds the problem. Perhaps you (and others) refer specifically to the differences between the plain peripheral areas of the screens? If so I can't say I've noticed an issue there either.

Ah well, c'est la vie.

I don’t use split prisms or any focusing aids and try to get screens devoid of these (I’m pretty sure my Acute Matte D was plain). In comparing plain screens of more professional medium format cameras, I’ve had the most difficulty achieving precise focus with Acute Matte D (this is in relative terms, of course; I was still able to take many in-focus photographs).

if you’ve had success with the split-prism, that’s fair enough, but that style of focusing doesn’t work with many of my subjects or preferred compositions.

 

[voceumana]

Since different people have different vision, there is not necessarily a "right" screen or viewfinder that is best for everyone. That's why there are different options.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pentax offered different 67 screen options, but only after the fact of purchase of the camera with the standard one, and not user-interchangeable. Differences between viewfinders is more a matter of application than personal eyesight. With prisms you could get corrective diopters, and the deluxe chimney finder has an adjustable diopter. If you are working from a tripod, a flip-down fine-focus magnifier is an excellent supplement to a prism.

 

[yessammassey]

There was already a similar discussion in late May of this year. You need your eye right up to the chimney finder. It has an adjustable diopter magnifier and screens out all side light, and magnifies the entire screen. But the folding hood can be used waist level, and has a basic flip-down lens which magnifies just the center portion. Both are plenty bright, provided you're using one of their faster lenses, of course, and IF stray light isn't getting in from the top with the folding version. For dim light work, the chimney finder is the brightest option they have. Prism finders are more convenient however.

Thank you. Now that I know I can decide if I'd rather have the chimney finder for focusing long exposure compositions at night with the 75/4.5, or the WLF for faster accurate framing in daylight.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The 75/4.5 is somewhat dim regardless. It's one of my favorite lenses, but even in broad daylight I use either a supplementary magnifier with the prism finder, or the deluxe chimney finder. The WLF is critically realistic only with their faster lenses, but it's a nice option to have on a second camera body to conserve weight and space. If you another body along too, with a prism finder, you can always swap them out if needed. I sometimes do that, with one body dedicated to black and white film, and the other to color film. The deluxe chimney finder is significantly easier to focus with than the other two options, but misery to work with in vertical camera position, or high up around eye level.

 

[GLS]

There's the 75mm AL if you need a brighter option, but if you can find one you will pay through the nose.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The fast 75's are relatively easy to find. The complicated part is robbing a bank first.