WLF vs Prism?

[DWThomas]

I own a 45º and a 90º prism finder for my Bronica SQ-A but have to admit I almost never use either; I suppose using the WLF also keeps me consistent with my Yashica 124G. The SQ-A WLF is light weight and folds to compact the package. Of course, I don't shoot auto racing or hockey games!

 

[dpurdy]

I nearly always use a 90º prism on my Rolleiflex. Not only does it give you options to how you hold the camera.. taking lens down or taking lens to the side or taking lens up, and besides orienting the image correctly, it also makes the image much easier to see. You don't have to compete with ambient light and reflections on the surface of the screen as well as you don't have to be taking your reading glasses off and back on. I go the other way from most people on the balance issue. I find it much easier to hold the camera steady with the prism on. After focusing and when ready to push the shutter I cup the top of the prism in my left hand while holding the camera in my right hand. It is very solid.
Dennis

 

[Nuff]

I have a 90 degree prism and WLF viewfinder for my hasselblad 501c. I never use the prism. First of all the camera is lighter and more compact. Also like others have mentioned, with the WLF it helps my composition. It's only psychological, but it does make a difference to me. When I look down on it, to me it looks like I'm watching a photo and I'm much more likely to reject and correct photos that I would normally take with a prism.

As for the mirrored image and panning etc, I find it quite easy. I just hold the centre of the camera in my left hand, while moving the back of the camera in the direction the object is traveling (or is) in the viewfinder. The lens will follow the correct direction. But it sometimes can become bit difficult on diagonals. If I get all confused, I look up the scene again and back at the viewfinder. It will become second nature after few days.

Also my Acute-Matte screen is very bright even on the brightest and sunniest days in Australia. So the stray light was never an issue.

 

[bdial]

One handy use of waist level finders is over your head to shoot over a crowd or other obstructions.

When you can pan a moving subject while looking up at your upside down camera, you have passed.

 

[Roger Cole]

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.)

I'm pretty sure he means this:

Oh yeah, one other thing - in spite of the name I rarely shoot the WLF at waist level. Most of the time I use the magnifier on my Yashica and hold the camera up to my head where I look down with my eye right at the finder. I do sometimes use it at waist level but most often it is, in practice, more of a "neck level" finder and given that I am 6' tall that could easily be eye level for someone, say, 5'6".

 

[jk0592]

I find the 500cm heavy enough, so never used a prism. Plus, using the 'blad at eye level does not seem really stable as compared the "regular" much lower position. I use a hand held spot meter to work with the 500CM.

 

[martinjames]

I'm also in the "both" category. There are times when the WLF is the best solution for the Hasselblad and times when the camera position really benefits from using the prism finder. I wouldn't like to be limited to just one or the other, all the time. My prism finder includes a light meter so that adds another bit of convenience at times.

 

[Peltigera]

I like Waist level finders. I use them (no choice!) with my Ikoflex and (by choice) with my 35mm Exakta.

I find composition is MUCH easier this way. The reversal thing took me perhaps five rolls of film to master - I do not even think about it now.

 

[skysh4rk]

I have both the waist level finder and plain prism for my Bronica SQ-A and all I can say is:

WLF FTW!

 

[Steve Smith]

The square means I never have to try shooting the TLR on its side for a vertical like an SLR.

Doesn't stop me turning a 6x6 folder through 90 degrees occasionally!


Steve...

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I no longer think about the left-right reversal either, with the possible exception of (as previously mentioned) an odd perspective being chosen - shooting up or down is tricky. Also tricky (but try doing this with a prism finder!) is holding the camera over your head to get a higher perspective - you can gain an extra 2 feet ( 0.7 meters +/- ) of elevation by turning the camera with a waist-level finder upside down and holding it over your head, letting you shoot over crowds or otherwise change your perspective. But when the camera is upside down, it really messes with your head trying to get left/right orientation correct (probably because you've just laterally reversed it again, and your brain is used to it being ass-backwards in the finder as normally used), and changing perspective also now runs counter to expectation.

 

[Paul Goutiere]

I've begun using my 501CM with the PME5 prism finder regardless of the weight, it just works so well.
Having a built in light meter is really nice to.

I do find the weight a bit of a drag, but it's worth it.

 

[tron_]

I'm also in the "both" catagory. On my RZ67 I prefer the WLF. I bought my 501c/m with a PM5 prism finder and find focusing with the 45 degree split prism harder than on my Mamiya. But it's all personal preference, I just find focusing with a WLF easier.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have a wlf for my Hasselblad, but I have never used it. I use a prism. The wlf shows the subject upright, however the image has a left-right [for the English right-left] reversal. My past experience with the left-right reversal is that I always swing the camera in the wrong direction when I am tracking a subject. Hence I use the prism which just happens to have a light meter that reads ELV, conveniently.

 

[Nuff]

Another thing, at least on hasselblad, out of all the finders the WLF has the highest magnification. From memory it's x4 or x5. My PM90 has only x2. I find it really hard to get focus right with it. If for you focus is critical and you are working with lens fairly wide open like I do. WLF is the way to go.

And prism weights as much as another lens, we are talking 500g+ here. I will choose a lens over prism.

 

[snederhiser]

Hello;
Have two camera's that are equipped with both options, my K-60 and a M645. I shoot with both depending on what's being photographed. Nice to have options, but lean to the waistlevel finder. Steven.

 

[TareqPhoto]

Year after year i am trying to fix or complete my kit with film, and i have 3 issues so far with my film MF cameras wish i hope to fix sooner or later within time.

1. Mamiya RZ Pro II, the battery is draining, and i have having batteries cameras not rechargeable, but i found a battery model that is rechargeable to be used with my Mamiya RZ, hope this will solve the issue [didn't test it yet].

2. Mamiya 7II is still not working, could be the battery, also if no rechargeable battery i hate using it, so far i prefer those mechanical MF cameras with no batteries, but not sure if the issue is from battery or something else yet.

3. Hasselblad 501CM focusing screen is bad, i hardly can focus good, not like RZ screen which is superior for me than Hasselblad ones, i asked about it and got answers but not sure which options i should take before i spend money and not solving the issue. I have 2 different focusing screen [Matte and Matte-D] and both are awful to focus, so i am not sure if it is normal with Hasselblad or maybe there are better focusing screen.

Once i solve the 3 above issues then i will have more fun using film MF, for now the best film MF camera i have without issues and i love it is Fuji GSW690III, but it is a fixed lens and it is 6x9, not always i want that format even it is really lovely, the photos are so sharp and i am happy with it.

About the WLF vs. Prism, well, i get used to that WLF of RZ67II, but it is about focusing with me and still couldn't feel comfortable or get used the focusing with Hasselblad WLF, i don't know if i bought that Prism for Hasselblad it may solve the problem or make it easier to focus than WLF, but who knows, one day i hope to figure out the problem and manage to fix/solve it.

 

[Alan Gales]

I've got a Beattie Intenscreen in my Hasselblad. It is a huge improvement over the original focussing screen.

 

[TareqPhoto]

I've got a Beattie Intenscreen in my Hasselblad. It is a huge improvement over the original focussing screen.

Great, even i got that option from one of the answers but i wasn't sure, in fact the problem was many gave me options but not reviews or impressions, so that i couldn't decide on anything, and now you told me about this model and you say it was a huge improvement then this will help a lot, and i will check out one and get it, thank you very much!

 

[paul ron]

Tareq.. dump the RZ for an RB, that problem will be solved!.. and yu save a bunch opf cash for more lenses.

 

[TareqPhoto]

Tareq.. dump the RZ for an RB, that problem will be solved!.. and yu save a bunch opf cash for more lenses.

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.

 

[tron_]

Year after year i am trying to fix or complete my kit with film, and i have 3 issues so far with my film MF cameras wish i hope to fix sooner or later within time.

1. Mamiya RZ Pro II, the battery is draining, and i have having batteries cameras not rechargeable, but i found a battery model that is rechargeable to be used with my Mamiya RZ, hope this will solve the issue [didn't test it yet].

2. Mamiya 7II is still not working, could be the battery, also if no rechargeable battery i hate using it, so far i prefer those mechanical MF cameras with no batteries, but not sure if the issue is from battery or something else yet.

3. Hasselblad 501CM focusing screen is bad, i hardly can focus good, not like RZ screen which is superior for me than Hasselblad ones, i asked about it and got answers but not sure which options i should take before i spend money and not solving the issue. I have 2 different focusing screen [Matte and Matte-D] and both are awful to focus, so i am not sure if it is normal with Hasselblad or maybe there are better focusing screen.

Once i solve the 3 above issues then i will have more fun using film MF, for now the best film MF camera i have without issues and i love it is Fuji GSW690III, but it is a fixed lens and it is 6x9, not always i want that format even it is really lovely, the photos are so sharp and i am happy with it.

About the WLF vs. Prism, well, i get used to that WLF of RZ67II, but it is about focusing with me and still couldn't feel comfortable or get used the focusing with Hasselblad WLF, i don't know if i bought that Prism for Hasselblad it may solve the problem or make it easier to focus than WLF, but who knows, one day i hope to figure out the problem and manage to fix/solve it.

Regarding the Hasselblad screens, I have an Matte-D in my 501CM with the 45 degree split prism and it's very difficult to use. On the other hand my RZ67 is a breeze to focus so I can definitely relate to what you are saying. I agree 100% in fact. I'm not sure if we just have bum focusing screens or are spoiled by the wonderful RZ screen, but either way I would say the Matte-D screen in my Hasselblad is only about 60% as good as the RZ screen.

 

[TareqPhoto]

Regarding the Hasselblad screens, I have an Matte-D in my 501CM with the 45 degree split prism and it's very difficult to use. On the other hand my RZ67 is a breeze to focus so I can definitely relate to what you are saying. I agree 100% in fact. I'm not sure if we just have bum focusing screens or are spoiled by the wonderful RZ screen, but either way I would say the Matte-D screen in my Hasselblad is only about 60% as good as the RZ screen.

So i may give that Beattie Intenscreen, it is very expensive for sure but in all cases if it will help me and give better performance in focusing then it will be all worthy, i don't want to throw my Hasselblad in bag collecting dust for favor to RZ.

 

[mweintraub]

Tareq.. dump the RZ for an RB, that problem will be solved!.. and yu save a bunch opf cash for more lenses.

The money he'll lose for selling a "bad" body (if he is honest) won't save him a bunch of cash.

Plus, the RB lenses will work on the RZ.

 

[TareqPhoto]

The money he'll lose for selling a "bad" body (if he is honest) won't save him a bunch of cash.

Plus, the RB lenses will work on the RZ.

True, but i can afford RB also not thinking about getting rid of RZ.

I am not thinking much about RZ/RB now, but one day i may think about getting RB too.