Who Likes a Prism on Their Medium Format Reflex Camera?

[ic-racer]

For many years of TLR use I embraced the waist-level finder. Until I got a prism for my Rollei 2.8 in 1998. After that I was hooked.

Recently my Rollei Hy6 came with a waist-level finder and I tried to get used to that again. I finally found a prism for Hy6 and it is like a whole new camera for me! I just can't go back to the waist level finder.

Who else prefers a prism or porrofinder to the waist-level finder?

 

[AnselMortensen]

My Bronica ETRSi with a prism and a winder is an ergonomic delight.

 

[abruzzi]

99% of the time, I prefer a WLF over a prism. The one thing though is most medium format SLRs put metering in the prism, so if you use the waist level finder, you also need to carry a meter. Not too bad, but sometimes thats not all that convenient. The only SLR I do use with a prism is occasionally the ETRSi. I combine the AE-III prism and the pistol grip and it works pretty well, but I still prefer the WLF.

 

[Dan Daniel]

I don't like the bulk and weight and poor balance when it comes to a TLR, but I have used a Hassy NC-2 scabbed onto an Autocord at various times and enjoyed it. Once I settle into the weight and such it works well. Not too far off from a waist level finder with my nose up to the magnifier but of course correct orientation of the image, etc.

 

[Pieter12]

Me! Me! Me!

 

[MattKing]

Sometimes I use a prism on my Mamiya C330.

But many times I prefer the waist level finder on it.
With my Mamiya 645 Pro, the prism finder is in use 95% of the time, because using the waist level finder on that camera means subjects that call for a portrait orientation are just too much of a pain to do.
With the RB67 I used to have, the waist level finder is wonderful - although the chimney finder has its uses.

 

[bdial]

Generally, I prefer a prism, though I use my ELX with a waist level finder because of the weight. So the prism mostly stays on the manual body.

 

[mshchem]

It depends on the camera. I use waist level the most.

 

[MFstooges]

That's why I have P67.

 

[MarkS]

When I was hired as a portrait and yearbook photographer in 1979, the studio issued me a Bronica ETR-S with the Speed Grip winder and a prism VF. The more senior shooters got the AE finder, not me though. It was an excellent tool for the work we did with it (mostly group portraits).

In 1984, I went to work for Kodak's Commercial & Government Systems division- our group mostly used 4x5 cameras. There were a couple of ex-USAF Hasselblads too, and using them reminded me of how much I disliked the waist-level finder. We were eventually able to convince management to upgrade, which led to (among other things) a new 500-series body and a 45-degree prism finder (without meter). That transformed the whole situation... the Hasselblads were now a pleasure to use, and were the go-to camera for much of our work until digital became necessary.

And in about 2005 I bought a Rolleicord Vb for fun... a fine camera. I did good work with it, found I could deal with the waist-level finder and relatively dim focussing, but still I wished for that 45-degree finder. Tthat's gone too, but if I ever get another 120 camera, it will have an eye-level finder.

 

[Kino]

Yep. Most of my Medium Format Cameras have a prism and those that don't, I use the sports finder after focusing to compose the image.

Hate the disorienting effect of L-R being flipped, but strangely enough don't mind the GG of a large format camera with the image upside down and reversed.

Go figure.

 

[MattKing]

Back when the camera you see in my posted pic was close to new - and I was a lot closer to new - I started a part-time business doing mostly weddings. I was also going to university, as well as doing part-time work in other photography related businesses, including a couple of studios that hired stringers to do overflow wedding work.
The busiest wedding studio - the one that hired the most stringers - had as one of their criteria for the photographers they hired that they used cameras with eye-level finders, and that their wedding portfolio showed that.
The reason? Photographers who used waist-level finders exclusively tended to take a lot of wedding photos that exhibited what they called the "navel-eye view of the world" .
Customers tend to like the results better if the camera's viewpoint is closer to eye level, and that leads to more profitable print sales.

 

[MFstooges]

Back when the camera you see in my posted pic was close to new - and I was a lot closer to new - I started a part-time business doing mostly weddings. I was also going to university, as well as doing part-time work in other photography related businesses, including a couple of studios that hired stringers to do overflow wedding work.
The busiest wedding studio - the one that hired the most stringers - had as one of their criteria for the photographers they hired that they used cameras with eye-level finders, and that their wedding portfolio showed that.
The reason? Photographers who used waist-level finders exclusively tended to take a lot of wedding photos that exhibited what they called the "navel-eye view of the world" .
Customers tend to like the results better if the camera's viewpoint is closer to eye level, and that leads to more profitable print sales.

Interesting. In 35mm I learned that we had to shoot from waist or even lower (cat's eye view) so that the picture doesn't look like what's taken by everyone else's and their grandma's. I guess because most 35mm cameras have eye level VF.

 

[MattKing]

Interesting. In 35mm I learned that we had to shoot from waist or even lower (cat's eye view) so that the picture doesn't look like what's taken by everyone else's and their grandma's. I guess because most 35mm cameras have eye level VF.

Photos of people that are taken from a lower point of view tend to accentuate the size of hips and stomachs, and tend to make heads and faces appear smaller.
Not a good formula for photographs of brides!
Not to mention photographs of mothers of the brides!

 

[JensH]

... Who else prefers a prism or porrofinder to the waist-level finder View attachment 376094

Hi,

not me. I bought the same 45deg version for my SLX II to get a non left/right fliped view but sold it after a few weeks.
Didn't like the ergonomics, the smaller than expected image/view size and the extra wight.
So the wlf for me, the loupe here does a good job.

Jens

 

[JensH]

Hate the disorienting effect of L-R being flipped, but strangely enough don't mind the GG of a large format camera with the image upside down and reversed.

Go figure.

+1
... sometimes the composion of a picture looks better if looking at the negative from the wrong side with mf and wlf.
That doesn't happen from the double flipped lf screen.

 

[MFstooges]

Photos of people that are taken from a lower point of view tend to accentuate the size of hips and stomachs, and tend to make heads and faces appear smaller.
Not a good formula for photographs of brides!
Not to mention photographs of mothers of the brides!

I'm referring to general photography. As for taking people's picture I tend to agree with that as I'm old skool but these days I feel like it's less relevant. With the arrival of smartphones and their wide angle people don't seem to mind that their anatomy seem like aliens.

 

[neilt3]

I typically have the AEiii prism on my ETRSi where it works great, especially in portrait orientation.
I have a AE metered prism for my SQ-Ai as well that's often used . But I do frequently use the WLF .
Same goes for the Kiev 88 , it's metered but as it's not an AE prism , I frequently just use my Minolta spot meter and leave the WLF on as I'm typically using a tripod anyway .
My Mamiya TLRs can use either .
I have the porroprism for it , but have rarely used it , but I've recently got an adapter to to put my Kiev 88 metered prism on it , and although I've not had chance to use it , I'm looking forward to trying it out when I'm away next month.
I'll be comparing meter readings with a handheld meter at first though .
A lot of the time TLRs feel better just with the WLF with the neck strap doing all the support.
The ergonomics of the SLRs feel better either held up to the eye or on a tripod .
So it's more a case of what's being shot and is a tripod being used .
With a prism on , I'll still have the WLF with me to use either .

 

[etn]

For the record: I do NOT like to have a prism. But now in the age of reading glasses it feels much more comfortable with one.

One extra advantage of the prism (Hasselblad PME45 in my case) is an accurate built-in meter. I can therefore leave my meter at home, and I end up lugging roughly the same amount of equipment around. However, the beautiful, sleek lines of the Hassy now look fat and ugly. (Note: I don't use a prism with the Rolleiflex, it would be even uglier!)

 

[guangong]

While I have prism finders for both my Hasselblads and my Rolleiflex (including its pistol grip with cable release), for the most part i use WLFs. Prism finder for Hassy used mostly for long lenses. For general picture taking I find it awkward in practice. The Rollei WLF, with the press of a finger, can be converted to an eye level finder (that still allows for eye level focusing) when needed. I use handheld meters rather than built-in, although I do have the metered winding knob on a Hassy…think belt and suspenders.

 

[mrosenlof]

Hasselblad and Mamiya TLR owner here. I have prisms for both systems and use them rarely. I prefer the WLF and use a prism only if I need (or want) the camera on a tall tripod and can't look down into the WLF.

 

[loccdor]

It all depends on how dark it is looking in the finder for me. I can't stand very dark viewfinders on reflex cameras which lead to slow or inaccurate focusing and eye strain.

As long as it's bright, I enjoy working with both, with WLF good for those low shots, sneak shots, and tripod work, and prisms for everything else.

 

[jimjm]

I usually have a WLF on my Bronica SQ bodies, but sometimes use a 45 degree prism finder. It's preferred if I want more accurate focusing and composition and don't mind the extra weight. I find the standard eyelevel prism awkward to hold up to my eye for extended periods - the 45-deg finder is much more comfortable for handholding.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

For many years of TLR use I embraced the waist-level finder. Until I got a prism for my Rollei 2.8 in 1998. After that I was hooked.

Recently my Rollei Hy6 came with a waist-level finder and I tried to get used to that again. I finally found a prism for Hy6 and it is like a whole new camera for me! I just can't go back to the waist level finder.

Who else prefers a prism or porrofinder to the waist-level finder?

View attachment 376096 View attachment 376095 View attachment 376094

I like my 45- or 90-degree prism finders, but in general, the waist-level finder is always what I return to. It's simply always there and accessible. I also like the possibility of magnification.

 

[Paul Howell]

I use a Prism on my Kowas, although I have Yashicas which don't the prism option when shooting a Rollifex while in the AF I generally shot with the prism.