rulnacco
Well-known
I voted prism--because that's how I've been shooting my MF SLRs mostly lately. But the real answer for me would be "depends."
I've got an RZ67 and a couple of Hasselblads, and I've got both the Mamiya and Hasselblad 45 degree prisms.
If the cameras are on a tripod in the studio, I usually use the prism. That's because in there, I'm normally shooting rather tight, and the prism is not only a little easier to use on a tripod, it allows me to "lock in" a little better on the subject somehow and ensure accurate focus and intended composition. It's particularly easier to shoot with the prism when I've got a digital back on the RZ67, as there are a couple of cables dangling from that so using the prism and the tripod together makes it more manageable.
Outside the studio, I normally only use the WLF.
One of my two Blads is a 553ELX I recently got kinda silly cheap. I'll probably just keep the prism on that camera, as it will likely sit on a tripod full time, and use the WLF with the 500CM.
Which is more *fun* to use? The WLF, definitely. It seems to lead to a much more relaxed and spontaneous shooting style. Not only that, with medium format cameras, I've somehow gotten to the point that the reversed field of view with the WLF seems totally natural, and strangely, when I first started using prisms (and even occasionally now, although I'm getting better), it was hard for me to spontaneously turn the camera the way I wanted it with the prism, and it still feels "weirder" than using the WLF somehow.
(Interestingly, in his book 50 Portraits, Gregory Heisler said that a lot of his work in the past was done with an RZ67, with a 45-degree prism. I don't have the book at hand right now, but he said something to the effect that it enabled him to converse more naturally and maintain a better connection with his subject as he wasn't peering straight downward, as he would with a WLF, and his face wasn't totally hidden behind the camera, as it would be with a 90-degree finder. With the 45-degree prism, he could just direct his eyes slightly downward to focus and compose, but he could quickly glance upward again to maintain eye contact with his sitter.)
I've got an RZ67 and a couple of Hasselblads, and I've got both the Mamiya and Hasselblad 45 degree prisms.
If the cameras are on a tripod in the studio, I usually use the prism. That's because in there, I'm normally shooting rather tight, and the prism is not only a little easier to use on a tripod, it allows me to "lock in" a little better on the subject somehow and ensure accurate focus and intended composition. It's particularly easier to shoot with the prism when I've got a digital back on the RZ67, as there are a couple of cables dangling from that so using the prism and the tripod together makes it more manageable.
Outside the studio, I normally only use the WLF.
One of my two Blads is a 553ELX I recently got kinda silly cheap. I'll probably just keep the prism on that camera, as it will likely sit on a tripod full time, and use the WLF with the 500CM.
Which is more *fun* to use? The WLF, definitely. It seems to lead to a much more relaxed and spontaneous shooting style. Not only that, with medium format cameras, I've somehow gotten to the point that the reversed field of view with the WLF seems totally natural, and strangely, when I first started using prisms (and even occasionally now, although I'm getting better), it was hard for me to spontaneously turn the camera the way I wanted it with the prism, and it still feels "weirder" than using the WLF somehow.
(Interestingly, in his book 50 Portraits, Gregory Heisler said that a lot of his work in the past was done with an RZ67, with a 45-degree prism. I don't have the book at hand right now, but he said something to the effect that it enabled him to converse more naturally and maintain a better connection with his subject as he wasn't peering straight downward, as he would with a WLF, and his face wasn't totally hidden behind the camera, as it would be with a 90-degree finder. With the 45-degree prism, he could just direct his eyes slightly downward to focus and compose, but he could quickly glance upward again to maintain eye contact with his sitter.)
