jett
Well-known
How is it for handheld use?
I know it isn't the best camera but I didn't have much trouble using the WLF on my once-owned Pentacon 6. I prefer using WLF, anyways.
I know it isn't the best camera but I didn't have much trouble using the WLF on my once-owned Pentacon 6. I prefer using WLF, anyways.
Swift1
Veteran
I've used my 67 primarily with the WLF for the past 5 years. IMO, shooting handheld is much easier with the WLF than with the the prism. Firstly, you lose 1 lb of weight by removing the prism, and secondly, you can allow the neck strap to hold the camera weight so the camera remains steady.
Focusing is a little more difficult, but you also get 100% frame coverage with the WLF.
littleearth
Well-known
I used it maybe twice on a tripod.
I also use the WLF on the P6 and love it, but on the 6x7 format it just didn't work for me.
I also use the WLF on the P6 and love it, but on the 6x7 format it just didn't work for me.
sdotkling
Sent through the ether
Everyone who has ever had one of these monster cameras will certainly have an opinion...including me. The Pentax Godzilla is designed to be eye-level, like a humongous 35 SLR, and for that convenience, you have to make your peace with a machine that weighs as much as a barbell, and slaps its mirror so hard it could pulverize gallstones from 20 feet. Which isn't to say I didn't love mine.
But if a waist-level-finder is what floats your boat, get yourself a Rolleiflex or YashicaMat. Much easier, more intuitively designed, and lighter by tons. Even a Hasselblad (itself clumsy enough that I never take it out of my studio) would be a better experience.
But if a waist-level-finder is what floats your boat, get yourself a Rolleiflex or YashicaMat. Much easier, more intuitively designed, and lighter by tons. Even a Hasselblad (itself clumsy enough that I never take it out of my studio) would be a better experience.
Swift1
Veteran
Pretty difficult to shoot 6x7 in Hasselblad or Rolleiflex :bang:
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I own a P67II with both the AE Prism and WLF. I really like shooting both the 45/4.0 and 55/4.0 with the WLF, even though I loose the metering.
Even though my 75/2.8 AL technically is a wide I use the AE finder with that lens and longer focal lengths.
Cal
Even though my 75/2.8 AL technically is a wide I use the AE finder with that lens and longer focal lengths.
Cal
Corran
Well-known
In my opinion the WLF on the P67 combines all the negatives of an SLR (mirror slap, blackout) with the negatives of a TLR (difficult to focus on the GG w/o the magnifier, difficult to orient correctly, especially on a tripod that isn't low to the ground). Plus no metering. The 100% coverage is a nice bonus though.
So, I never use mine. I keep it "just in case." But clearly other people enjoy theirs - it's a difference in shooting experience for sure.
So, I never use mine. I keep it "just in case." But clearly other people enjoy theirs - it's a difference in shooting experience for sure.
jett
Well-known
The main reason why I want to use the WLF is for focusability.
From my limited experience, it is much easier for me to focus MF SLRs using a WLF. The reduced weight and 100% coverage are additional bonuses. The inverted viewing is neigther a pro or a con for me. I prefer inverted viewing for deliberate shooting and noninverted viewing for quick shooting.
Actually, I see no benefit of using the Prism on this camera, except for maybe ergonomics...given that it is not a box camera. (not sure--I have no experience).
I have a Rolleiflex. The reason why I want this camera is for the 105/2.4 lens, mostly. I don't mind using a WLF because I seldom shoot portrait orientation and I like to be more deliberate (slower) with medium format.
From my limited experience, it is much easier for me to focus MF SLRs using a WLF. The reduced weight and 100% coverage are additional bonuses. The inverted viewing is neigther a pro or a con for me. I prefer inverted viewing for deliberate shooting and noninverted viewing for quick shooting.
Actually, I see no benefit of using the Prism on this camera, except for maybe ergonomics...given that it is not a box camera. (not sure--I have no experience).
I have a Rolleiflex. The reason why I want this camera is for the 105/2.4 lens, mostly. I don't mind using a WLF because I seldom shoot portrait orientation and I like to be more deliberate (slower) with medium format.
Gerry M
Gerry
"But if a waist-level-finder is what floats your boat, get yourself a Rolleiflex or YashicaMat. Much easier, more intuitively designed, and lighter by tons."
Kind of difficult to change lenses on the above.
Kind of difficult to change lenses on the above.
ruby.monkey
Veteran
For 6x7 shooting with a WLF, it's hard to beat a Mamiya RB- or RZ67. The Pentax's shape isn't particularly conducive to a steady hold at waist level.
Fixcinater
Never enough smoky peat
Does anyone actually use the wlf at Waist Level? I think of it (and use it) more as a Just Below Eye Level...
Swift1
Veteran
I use it at waist level all the time.
This is me in 2012 when I could still kinda walk. Even then, I couldn't lift the camera to my eye.
If you hold the camera kinda like I am, and use your thumb to press the shutter, it's actually very stable, in my experience, it's more stable than a Hasselblad because the 67 hangs on the strap better.
bdeyes
Established
Relatively speaking, is the P67 focus screen dimmer or brighter than the GG of the earlier Rolleiflex's (Cs, Ds, early Es)? If focusing with camera at waist-level on the P67 is as challenging as that on the earlier Rolleiflex (GG not as bright as on the later Rollies), then that would be a show-stopper for me, as on the Rolleiflex 2.8C I often have to use the magnifier and bring it up to eye-level to get critical focus. Then lower it for shooting. Can't imagine doing that frequently with the heavyweight P67.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
It is brighter and (depending on the lens) easier to focus.
But critical focus is not all about brightness. Unless you're using a screen with a split prism you will probably still need to use the magnifier for critical focus. But if you are using "average" f/stops (say from f/16-f/8) you can probably do without critical focusing anyway.
But critical focus is not all about brightness. Unless you're using a screen with a split prism you will probably still need to use the magnifier for critical focus. But if you are using "average" f/stops (say from f/16-f/8) you can probably do without critical focusing anyway.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I like composing on ground glass. It is slower and more delibrite, and shooting with the prism is faster. Do note that on my Nikon F3 HP that I use an "E" screen that offers no focus aid, and on a R8 I am getting a plain ground glass screen. I like the WLF for wides and think the design is great.
The 105/2.4 has wonderful rendering, but realize that if you close focus or shoot wide open that DOF is extreamly shallow. At least with wides you have some lattitude, but the 105 can be unforgiving if not stopped down or if you don't have some distance between you and your subject.
BTW I like heavy cameras. To me heavy is steady. Sniper rifles are heavy for a reason. A friend calls my cameras "Monsters" BTW.
Cal