• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

What effing universe is this?

(Waist level finders for MF)
MattKing said:
Because a bunch of the bodies that are still in working condition were sold with an eye-level finder only.
Most pros doing wedding work and the like tried to avoid the dreaded "navel eyed" view of the world.
Click to expand...

The answer is usually supply and demand, but why? For auxiliary finders for rangefinders, I sort of understand it. The aux finders get separated from their lenses / cameras easily and may get lost, so the supply diminishes, and the RF market has long has a collector's influence and limited supply. But there are substitutes for shoe-mount viewfinders.

I've posted a couple of times about the recent high prices of waist level finders. As far as I know, this is a relatively recent phenomenon, like past few years film revival. As you say, some MF cameras were originally used with prisms and not WLFs, so the supply is partially limited. This is especially true of 645 SLRs, where the WLF is awkward for verticals, but less true of 6x6. The odd thing is that WLFs of course were originally much cheaper than the prisms, but now prices are inverted. I understand why WLFs for 645 cameras were rare to begin with, but I understand less for WLFs for 6x6 and the RB67.

So why is demand higher? I think the iconic nature of the WLF on a medium format camera, especially the Hasselblad - it's what people picture when they think of an MF SLR, and that probably appeals to users in the film-revival crowd. Plus it's lighter than a prism and doesn't have issues with mirror coating going bad.
 
I expect that there were very, very few waist level finders made for most of the cameras that were specifically targeted at the wedding camera market, and I believe that some of the Bronicas were targeted that way.
 
I use an eye-level viewfinder with my RB67 which I bought 30 years ago when I couldn't get used to the waist-level finder the camera came with originally. Recently, a couple of years ago, I bought a chimney finder and a sports finder, both under $100 each. They're really neat but I haven't used them yet for actual shooting.
 
Want crazy? I'll give you crazy:

https://shop.lomography.com/en/last-in-stock/lomo-lubitel-166

$375!!!

I had one - a new old stock Russian Olympics model. The lens actually was awesome, but the camera broke into the 3rd roll. It basically lasted 2 rolls of film before the film advance broke.
Upside - I paid $30 for it, and sold it for $40 WITH the disclaimer it was broken.

But to think 'they' are asking $375 for one?!!! Holy wow.
 
NB23 said:
No way, I have nothing to do with helicopters... if I was rich though, I’d be into them haha
Click to expand...
Yeah.............and i would be moving to a 2500 sq/ft apartment in Manhattan with an additional 500 sq/ft of darkroom.
 

I happen to have both an old 166B and the Lomographic Society's 166+:

300€ would be a lot of money to ask for an old, decrepid 166U but they are, in fact, not the same camera. The 166+ is redesigned insofar as it does what the old Lubitels (and Brilliants etc.) never could do: focus properly. It has a split-prism (and microprism) focusing screen and, providing you can cut glass/plastic, it will accept any kind of ground glass screen. This is the major selling point: retain the Lubitel spirit, i.e. it's lens, small size – afaik it's the smallest TLR available – and low weight. It does a few other things too like bring a hot shoe and rewind medium format film, which is quite useful.

I love this camera to bits but I'll be the first to admit that it's not entirely solidly built. Which is not to say it's overall a weak design because I've dropped it more than once and it's still working fine. Weak points are the camera back's flimsy locking mechanism and the rewind lever. However, since it is still just a plastic box with no electronics to speak of, I will have my buddy mill a new locking lug and rewind knob from aluminium and to replace the old plastic ones. I believe that making sure the camera works as intended is in the true Soviet spirit of it's conception ;-)

As for the price: Is there another overhauled and improved 70+-year-old camera design available that one could compare the 166+ to? People usually raise the point that for the same 300€ you could just buy a Rolleicord/Yashica Mat etc. etc., which is true enough but beside the point all the same: even with a good specimen you may need to pay for a CLA on top of the purchase price, meanwhile the 166+ is a brand new camera with a one year warranty. More to the point: a Cord or Mat is not a Lubitel. They're great, don't get me wrong (I have a Yashica), but they weigh twice as much as the Lubitel to begin with. If I'm on a hike, or running around town, or on my way to work and I want some MF photography I don't want a 1 kg brick with sharp corners around my neck; I want a plastic box with a good-enough focusing screen and simple controls.

PS: I should add that I only paid 100€ for my 166+ but I'm considering buying another one while they're in-stock.
 
Last edited:
“Waist-level” finder is a misleading figure of speech. Think about it… German and Swedish waists are often quite high. I don’t think that style of open finder was ever really intended for legitimate use at genital level. And… nipple-level or chin-level finder just doesn’t quite have the right panache so the term stuck.
 
In German the WLF's point-of-view had been called (with mild derision) Bauchperspektive, literally "stomach perspective" or tummy view.
 
AnselMortensen said:
And while we're at it,
Why are waist-level finders for medium-format cameras so ridiculously expensive?
You can almost get a used body or a lens for the asking price of a WL finder.
????
Click to expand...

Because we want all the toys, even the ones we never use. I bought my Hasselblad with the WLF and the PME together knowing that I would never use the WLF because I cannot stand the left right reversal.
 
AnselMortensen said:
And while we're at it,
Why are waist-level finders for medium-format cameras so ridiculously expensive?
You can almost get a used body or a lens for the asking price of a WL finder.
????
Click to expand...

I doubt this is the reason for price hikes, but there is something to be gained by composing your image on the ground glass with a waist-level finder, with both eyes open (just like they are when you are looking at the final photograph), vs. using a prism finder, shutting one eye (which you won't be doing when viewing the final photograph), and looking at it that way. I'd pay extra for the waist-level finder every time based on that alone.
 
Another oddity: at least with Hasselblad and Rolleiflexes, as far as I recall, they were always sold with the flip-up waist (chest) level finders. Was the same true for the Bronco SQ-A series and the Mamiya C220 and C330? The prism finder had to be purchased as an additional item. So even photographers who used the prism finder 100% of the time had a spare WL finder in a drawer at home. Where did they all go?

OK here is another effing universe price: The Leitz Elmar 5cm ƒ/3.5 lenses now are selling for $400. They formerly were the discount lens compared to the Summitar or Summicron.
 
The Bronica SQ-A may have been marketed like the Mamiya 645 Pro-Tl - with three wedding photography oriented camera outfits being very high sellers. This is from the Mamiya 645 Pro-Tl system brochure:

 
MattKing said:
The Bronica SQ-A may have been marketed like the Mamiya 645 Pro-Tl - with three wedding photography oriented camera outfits being very high sellers. This is from the Mamiya 645 Pro-Tl system brochure:

View attachment 287270
Click to expand...
'

I got interested in Bronica when the ETRS was current, and I eventually upgraded to the ETRSi body as the center of my system. I do not recall Bronica ever offering pre-configured 'kits', everything was always 'a la carte', The 1990 Price List only mentions one 'complete configuration: Body, 120 back, Waist-level finder, 75mm lens..
 
That may have varied with distribution. Bronica availability was quite inconsistent depending on geography. When I was selling Mamiya and Hasselblad, there wasn't much Bronica stuff around in our market, and my vague recollection was that the stuff that was around differed from the US ads I saw.
 
Here's a couple of screenshots of the B&H ad with some MF and LF cameras from a Jan 1989 issue of Popular Photography - just one of the first ones I was able to dig up, see the full ad at https://books.google.com/books?id=g7zQvJ5CnHcC&lpg=PP1&dq=popular photography&pg=PA68#v=onepage&q&f=false Inflation is a factor of 2.1x from 1989 to 2020. I suspect the Hasselblad came with a WLF and the Mamiya and Bronica were a la carte as suggested above. The prism finders cost a substantial amount more, and the auto-exposure prisms were very expensive (over $500 in 1989 dollars). But a lot of wedding (as opposed to studio) pros might have plumped for the AE prisms. AE in medium format was relatively novel in the mid-80s I think.

For comparison, in the 35mm section of the ad, 1st generation 35mm AF gear dominates but is fairly expensive (for 35mm). 35mm MF bodies have mostly disappeared by 1989 except some pro and entry level bodies. You could still get a Pentax K-1000 + 50/2 for $162.



 
That could be easily comprehended. When I originally purchased, Bronica was distributed and serviced by GMI Photographic. Tamron later bought out Bronica, and continued Bronica for a few years before shutting down that segment of the business.
 
wiltw said:
That could be easily comprehended. When I originally purchased, Bronica was distributed and serviced by GMI Photographic. Tamron later bought out Bronica, and continued Bronica for a few years before shutting down that segment of the business.
Click to expand...
I can't remember who distributed Bronica in Canada. IIRC, Bronica was quite big in the UK - who knows who the distributor was there, and whether waist level or prism finders were more popular there with the wedding photography crowd.
 
A few fools offer Paillard-Bolex-H-16 cameras for USD 2,500 and up to over 5,000 on ebay. None of the vendors gives a warranty, they only have a return policy. These cameras aren’t worth more than 400 Dollars or 420, technically. Image steadiness worsenes at higher speeds, the reflex finder system complicates optics, the cameras run the film noisily. To be precise, the lateral film guidance works in the opposite direction to the standards (not with the early models). USD 5,000 was the price at the time when new, inflation respected. I’m right now having an exchange with somebody who tells me that he got offered € 750 for his H-16 RX-4 by a collector. I am offering him € 330. From the pictures he gave me I can clearly see that someone had a go at it, a nut is missing, the front spring is not seated correctly, the mechanism must still be in original state because the mastic seal is intact and I know how Paillard made the seal. Greed and idleness everywhere
 
$1600 for a standard Nikon F2, no lens, on craigslist:

Nikon F2 Photomic Vintage Camera $1,600.00
Includes, F2 Camera Body made in 1973
DP-1 Meter/Viewfinder
Nikon MD-2 Motor Drive
Nikon MB-1 Battery Pack
This was one of my personal cameras before digital.
The Camera is in perfect condition ready for use or display
 

I wonder if there's a half-inch thick roll of $100 bills stuffed inside the MB-1 or something?
 
No law against dreaming

There's been a Leitz Focomat IIC for sale on my local Craigslist for nearly three years. The guy is asking $850. In fact he increased the price at one point. People are funny...
 

Ballast in the camera bag.
 
I've used the prism finder for my C330 a lot:



The waist level finder as well:





They are important options, that have strengths and downsides as well. In a pinch, I could probably use either one for every photo I take with the camera, but I like having both available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register