WLF vs Prism?

[GarageBoy]

The Accu Matte D is bright, but I feel like the dim ground glass is easier to tell if things are in focus

 

[paul ron]

hahahahaha alot of people think newer is better, but when you see the guts cheapened over the years, more money going into advertising than product, you really see how powerful marketing was for a sinking company at the time... and it worked just enough to keep em alive.

You are reading my mind, i was thinking to do that exactly, but i was not sure how much different in quality between the two and the functionality of both cameras, something inside my head telling me that RZ lenses are better than RB lenses, but i may be wrong.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I suppose with MF users you mean "Middle Format" and not "Manual Focus"?

Maybe he means users of the Middle Finger.

 

[TareqPhoto]

or maybe Mo... F....., so whatever it stands for, we should keep on topic, hahaha

 

[Sirius Glass]

or maybe Mo... F....., so whatever it stands for, we should keep on topic, hahaha

Great minds ... I had the same thought but I could not come up with a funny way to handle it.

 

[Paul Glover]

I quite enjoy using the WLF on my Yashica TLR. The lateral reversal doesn't bother me usually, though I'm not trying to follow action with it. There are times where the WLF isn't as practical of course, but then again there are times when an eyelevel finder isn't the best choice either. Like Roger I tend to use it more at chest/neck level. I've also used it turned on its side for eyelevel work, though that gets very disorienting unless I slow down a lot and think everything through, but with more practice, that might get easier. The only other issue is in low light it can get very hard to compose at all, but that's more an issue with the dim screen on this particular camera.

 

[TheToadMen]

Great minds ... I had the same thought but I could not come up with a funny way to handle it.

To keep it in the spirit of APUG: More Film!

 

[tnabbott]

However, the main reason I am looking to buy a prism finder is camera height, particularly for portraits. To have the camera at the height of a human head you could just look directly into a prism, but at that height with a WLF you need to stand on something.

Height is the one reason I will go to a prism. I am using a Rollei 6008, so I get the metering information in the WLF too.

For portraits, I have been told that the ideal position is to have the camera about midway, not equal, in height. So when the model is standing, I am sitting or kneeling and the camera is approximately equal in height to the model's pelvis or midsection.

 

[tnabbott]

There are a lot of Middle Format (MF) [sic] cameras that don't use Waist Level Finders (WLF), such as Bronica RF645, Pentax 67, etc.

The Pentax 67 has a WLF.

 

[tnabbott]

What is his technique?
Meanwhile, I came to MF with the Pentax 645N system and loved it. Then tried a Rolleiflex and it quickly took over. Yes, I had to get used to the mirror image, but ultimately find the mirror image an advantage, and the WLF a superb plus. Especially if you wear glasses, as I do: I can keep them on with my Rolleiflexes, not with my Pentax.

I loved it so much that I also acquired a Rolleiflex 6008i, which has a WLF, but with meter and interchangeable lenses. It is heavy, though, but handles quite well. It is not sharper than the Xenotar or Planar 2.8 80mm lenses on the TLR, which are indeeed wonderfully silent. I'm going to offload one TLR only because I need the dosh, and I hope to add to my 6008i, and still have a TLR, but otherwise the TLR rules. (I still use my Pentax 645N with 35mm, 135mm, and 150mm lenses. The Pentax also is ergonomically brilliant, has a built-in diopter, and a future upgrade path to the 645D... But the WLF is still my first choice.)

We have remarkably similar gear. I also have the Pentax 645 and 6008i. I have a 67II for good measure. I agree with your assessment of these types.

 

[MattKing]

For portraits, I have been told that the ideal position is to have the camera about midway, not equal, in height. So when the model is standing, I am sitting or kneeling and the camera is approximately equal in height to the model's pelvis or midsection.

For environmental portraits, this may be correct.

But it can gives some strange results.

When younger, I had a very experienced photographer tell me that he wouldn't hire a wedding photographer who didn't at least have a prism finder available.

If you use a waist level finder, there is a tendency to end up with a "naval eye view of the world" in your photographs of people.

Which definitely doesn't result in the most flattering view of many wedding guests - including many mothers of the bride!

 

[Sirius Glass]

WLFs provide interesting photographs looking up the subject's nasal passages. WLFs are the darlings of ENT doctors.

 

[jerrybro]

I'm thinking of trying a prism because my eyesight isn't what it used to be. Now I need the cheaters to compose then take them off and flip up the magnifier to ensure focus is right, then flip it back down and wonder where the dogs or grand child moved off to. Since I don't have these issues with the Nikon, I'm wondering if a prism will solve the problem.

 

[gone]

Had a prism on a Rolleiflex once. Great for portraits and fast shooting, but made the camera very top heavy and looked really ugly. On my Rolleicord, I simply swapped out the top WLF for a later one that had a sports finder. That works fine and avoids the weight of a prism housing. Some of the Rolleiflex cameras have a WLF that has a mirror in it so you can push the front in and focus on the mirror that looks down to the focus screen. It gives you an upside down image, but is, again, much lighter than a prism. That's my favorite type of WLF. I should look for one for my Rolleiord. It might fit.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Instead of using a prism on a Rolleiflex, Rolleicord, or Mamiyaflex, trade them in a get a prism on a Hasselblad and that will eliminate the balance problem.

 

[Alan Gales]

WLFs provide interesting photographs looking up the subject's nasal passages. WLFs are the darlings of ENT doctors.

Not if you hold the camera closer to your eye like Roger Cole suggests.

 

[BrianShaw]

Not if you hold the camera closer to your eye like Roger Cole suggests.

... And are same height as Roger. Shorter people may not get as good results without a step ladder.

 

[Alan Gales]

... And are same height as Roger. Shorter people may not get as good results without a step ladder.

You know Brian, I'm 5'-8". Yeah, short! Anyway If I hold my Hasselblad with waist level finder up to my face or I attach the prism finder it really doesn't make much difference. What do I gain? About 6"?

 

[paul ron]

hahahahhaha and the beat goes on n on.

When shooting models for full body shots, using a prism at eye level makes their legs look short so a lower angle is much more apealing for longer legs n a WLF is a better tool in this case.

FOrt portraits you will be using the 180mm lens so shooting from further back makes no difference WLF or prism but a prism will make your focusing job easier.


so depends on the situation.

OH I hate to get down on the floor for sit posing models, so I use my chimney finder (eq to a WLF).

 

[Alan Gales]

hahahahhaha and the beat goes on n on.

When shooting models for full body shots, using a prism at eye level makes their legs look short so a lower angle is much more apealing for longer legs n a WLF is a better tool in this case.

FOrt portraits you will be using the 180mm lens so shooting from further back makes no difference WLF or prism but a prism will make your focusing job easier.


so depends on the situation.

OH I hate to get down on the floor for sit posing models, so I use my chimney finder (eq to a WLF).

Thank you, Paul. One is not better than the other and it's nice to own both to give yourself options like I said earlier.

 

[paul ron]

Just have fun whatever you use, I am sure no matter what you have, you'll make it work one way or another adn eventually frustration will force you get the right tool for the job.

Want to know why I have a chimney and a WLF and a prism?.. can't make up my mind but use em all.

 

[Alan Gales]

I'm a retired Union Sheet Metal Worker. I didn't love any of my tools more than the others. I just used the right tool for the job. The result it all that matters.

 

[tnabbott]

For environmental portraits, this may be correct.

But it can gives some strange results.

When younger, I had a very experienced photographer tell me that he wouldn't hire a wedding photographer who didn't at least have a prism finder available.

If you use a waist level finder, there is a tendency to end up with a "naval eye view of the world" in your photographs of people.

Which definitely doesn't result in the most flattering view of many wedding guests - including many mothers of the bride!

Food for thought, but I probably do not agree. To clarify, I am talking about full body images, not shoulder/face portraits. I can see the point for the latter.

 

[tnabbott]

hahahahhaha and the beat goes on n on.

When shooting models for full body shots, using a prism at eye level makes their legs look short so a lower angle is much more apealing for longer legs n a WLF is a better tool in this case.

FOrt portraits you will be using the 180mm lens so shooting from further back makes no difference WLF or prism but a prism will make your focusing job easier.

+1 This is a better explanation of what I was trying to say.

 

[MattKing]

Food for thought, but I probably do not agree. To clarify, I am talking about full body images, not shoulder/face portraits. I can see the point for the latter.

I am chuckling, because I am picturing a couple of wedding participants that I definitely did not want to photograph with a camera that emphasized the waist most of all.

And a camera at waist level tends to do that.

I think the most important thought for me on this issue is that a photographer needs to be able to choose the camera height that is most suitable for the circumstances.

Tall, long-legged models showing off expensive fashions vs. people with significantly different body types and outfits - it is nice to be able to adjust.

Here is me with the camera that I used most for my wedding work, although the lens pictured was used more for closer portraits: