hausen
Well-known
WLF for me for sure. Sold my Fuji GF670 because I prefer the WLF on my Rolleiflex.
MF SLRs: Prism or Waist Level finder?
- Thread starter iamzip
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 66
- Views 2K
mgilbuena
San Francisco Bay Area
I use the WLF for weight reduction if I'm out in the field. The cameras are already quite heavy; I'm out for adventure and shooting!
The prism is great for studio photography.
The prism is great for studio photography.
fuji645
Established
I have the original M645; I originally used it with the prism finder. For the past several years, particularly with the 45mm f/2.8, I've been using the WL finder. The WL finder view forces you to view your subject matter diferently, which is probably the reason you got into medium format to begin with. I also have the motorized grip for this camera which does make shooting verticals easier but you lose that WL finder perspective.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I found the 45 degree prism finder to be perfect for my Bronica SQA. I also had the WLF and the 90 degree prism finder but used the 45 degree prism finder about 99% of the time. The other 1% was the WLF and always on a tripod.
Oddly, the 90 degree prism finder never seemed right for me even though that matches our 35mm experience exactly.
Oddly, the 90 degree prism finder never seemed right for me even though that matches our 35mm experience exactly.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
It really depends on the camera and application - on a tripod I use whatever finder I need to get a good view. Handheld, the prisms on most MF cameras are so heavy that the camera is way off balance and uncomfortable to wear and use. Hasselblad and Mamiya seem to have disregarded that type of use in their designs, and placed the prism eyepiece at a tripod friendly (but entirely useless at eye-level) angle, so it is mostly WLF there for me. People who have the knack (and perhaps anatomy) for chest level photography can get around hand holding a 45° finder half way between waist and eye level, but for me, that is too uncomfortable.
My one exception with a prism is the M645proTL, which works quite nicely at eye-level - with hand grip and the lighter (mirror rather than prism) FK-402 finder, its weight and handling is reasonably similar to a pro AF SLR/DSLR.
My one exception with a prism is the M645proTL, which works quite nicely at eye-level - with hand grip and the lighter (mirror rather than prism) FK-402 finder, its weight and handling is reasonably similar to a pro AF SLR/DSLR.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
A 90 degree prism finder works well for 645 in both orientations. I'm generally fine with using a WLF for any medium format -- though there are times when you really need to shoot at eye level, and then you do need a prism. But most of the time the WLF is fine, and with the magnifier it works fine. The prism adds a fair amount of weight and bulk, and can make these cameras pretty unwieldy when shooting handheld. (And I find some prisms disappointingly dark, like the unmetered Hassy 45 degree finder.)
No one has mentioned the Kowa Six/66 -- those actually are better with the WLF, largely because they are more like a TLR in design.
No one has mentioned the Kowa Six/66 -- those actually are better with the WLF, largely because they are more like a TLR in design.
k__43
Registered Film User
I've both for my Pentacon 6 but the prism weights a ton!
I also like composing with the WLF better
I also like composing with the WLF better
klaus123
Member
Hello
On my DLR Yashica I liked the WLF very much, especially the lower perspective for portraits. Further the mirrorwed picture gave me more distance to the things I see with my eyes.
Meanwhile on my Pentax 6x7 I usually use the prism and the WLF usually on a tripod only.
On my DLR Yashica I liked the WLF very much, especially the lower perspective for portraits. Further the mirrorwed picture gave me more distance to the things I see with my eyes.
Meanwhile on my Pentax 6x7 I usually use the prism and the WLF usually on a tripod only.
Nettar
Member
Yes, both are have their uses. In the 1960s I used a 6x6 SLR with a waist-level finder, and I longed for a prism -- which I got in 1970. That certainly made some pictures easier, but I'm not sure it made them better. Don't forget that one of the very nice things about a waist-level finder is that you can hold your camera high over your head, and still use it effectively. This gives you images that you simply can't get using a prism finder.
However, in I think 1973 I got my first Pentax 6x7, with a prism, and I used Pentax 6x7s for the next 20 years, never bothering to buy a waist-level finder for them. Heck, I bought a metered prism for the Pentax as soon as it became available, and shooting with a metered prism is so much easier than using a waist-level finder with no meter, especially if you are using transparency film (which I was). I fear that ease of use was a large part of my motivation, not necessarily the quality of the images! Nettar
However, in I think 1973 I got my first Pentax 6x7, with a prism, and I used Pentax 6x7s for the next 20 years, never bothering to buy a waist-level finder for them. Heck, I bought a metered prism for the Pentax as soon as it became available, and shooting with a metered prism is so much easier than using a waist-level finder with no meter, especially if you are using transparency film (which I was). I fear that ease of use was a large part of my motivation, not necessarily the quality of the images! Nettar
Last edited:
klaus123
Member
TThe metered prism is a valid argument for speed and convinience as well
divewizard
perspicaz
I use a HC-4 prism with diopter correction on my Hasselblad because it is much easier to use than waist level finder.
The wonderful matrix meter on my Pentax 67Ii only works with the prism.
The wonderful matrix meter on my Pentax 67Ii only works with the prism.
rumbliegeos
Well-known
A really big factor for me is whether I am using a tripod or not. My only MF slr is a Mamiya RB. I occasionally use it handheld, and with a prism it seems to have the mass of a small car.
curmudgeon
Member
I always use my Hasselblad on a tripod. (I have a GF670 and an embarrassing number of Rollei TLR's for walking around MF work.) I have both a WLF and a 90° prism for the Hasslblad. I use the WLF 99% of the time. When it's too awkward to use the WLF for a particular close up I use the prism. I tried a 45° prism too but it doesn't work as well in this application.
Findus
Established
I have and use both WLF and prism for my Hasselblad 500c/m. On very sunny days, I find the prism easier to use; also when taking photos of my little child when he is running around a lot. I use the WLF more, though.
My Mamiya C3 came with a WLF and I do not intend to buy a prism for it. It's perfect as it is.
Then I also have a M645J. I added a prism for shooting in portrait orientation and personally, I consider it necessary for this camera/format.
My Mamiya C3 came with a WLF and I do not intend to buy a prism for it. It's perfect as it is.
Then I also have a M645J. I added a prism for shooting in portrait orientation and personally, I consider it necessary for this camera/format.
a9tm
Newbie
I'm using PM5 prism on Hasselblad 500C/M, and AE-II prism on Bronica ETRS, they are both convenient to shoot at eye level and easy for composition as well.
Tijmendal
Young photog
Agreed. I don't like the prism finder on my M645 either. Though on my 'Blad I definitely prefer the the prism finder.
craygc
Well-known
The only 645 I use is my Pentax 645N for which the prism is the only option. I also have a TLR so Im use to the WLF as well. I use the 645 with a 55mm (manual focus) primarily for documentary style shooting - there is NO way I would want to try that with a WLF. So I think its really about application in the end as to what works and what suits YOU!
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
The prism really has to be accompanied by a motor (or the thumb lever transport grip on the Bronica ETR) - crank winding at eye level is ridiculously awkward.
Chris101
summicronia
This is an old thread and the OP has probably figured out the viewfinder dilemma, but I'd still like to comment on it.
Until a few years ago I had and used a Mamiya 645, and used both the prism and waist level finders for it. The WLF worked best for any kind of picture that required careful alignment and set-up. Looking down, rather than in the direction of the subject seems to give it a more abstracted quality, where I could look at the image as a picture, rather than as a representation of reality.
On the other hand, the prism was best for any pictures where the subject was in motion. That crazy mirror-imagey movement could make me nuts! Plus the prism I had incorporated a very nice meter, that the wlf lacked.
Until a few years ago I had and used a Mamiya 645, and used both the prism and waist level finders for it. The WLF worked best for any kind of picture that required careful alignment and set-up. Looking down, rather than in the direction of the subject seems to give it a more abstracted quality, where I could look at the image as a picture, rather than as a representation of reality.
On the other hand, the prism was best for any pictures where the subject was in motion. That crazy mirror-imagey movement could make me nuts! Plus the prism I had incorporated a very nice meter, that the wlf lacked.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I like waist level with square format ... Rolleiflex or Hasselblad V. Otherwise, an eye level finder works better to allow both portrait and landscape orientation.
G
G
