WLF or Prism with Medium Format SLR?

[iamzip]

Just out of curiosity, What do people here use most with their medium format SLRs (Hassy, Mamiya, et al.)? Waist level finder, prism finder, or both?

 

[ruby.monkey]

WLF mainly with my Mamiya RZ67 and 645 Pro TL; prism on my Pentax 645 because it's too primitive to offer interchangeable finders.

The Mamiyas see far more action than the Pentax for this reason.

 

[tunalegs]

WLF finder, easier to use on tripods, easier to use for macro work, fun for low angle POVs, lighter, brighter... about the only thing it does poorly is panning action shots - but if you practice you can do that too.

 

[Brian Atherton]

WLFs with my Rolleiflex 6006 and 6008 Integral.

 

[mike rosenlof]

Hasselblad 501cm and Mamiya TLR. WLF for both since they're square format. I have a prism for the Mamiya and hardly ever use it. If I had a 645, I would want a prism or I would never take a vertical.

 

[rbiemer]

Right now, I only have a prism for the only Med format camera I have; a Mamiya 645 Pro.
Previously, I owned a Kiev 60 and had both the meter prism and the WLF. Used them about equally, preferred the WLF for its lighter weight but didn't always want to carry a separate light meter.
I am thinking about an ARAX made Kiev 88 and I will likely just go with the WLF for that one.

The waist level finders can also be used as "over the head level" finders too. 🙂

Rob

 

[Godfrey]

I use the WLF most on the Hassy 500CM due to the weight and bulk of the 45° prism finder.

G

 

[Spanik]

Prism always, I just don't like to hold the camera to my eye with a wlf. Get a sore neck with that and even then it isn't very clear without a loupe.

 

[Spanik]

Previously, I owned a Kiev 60 and had both the meter prism and the WLF. Used them about equally, preferred the WLF for its lighter weight but didn't always want to carry a separate light meter.
Rob

There is an unmetered prism for the Kiev 60, much lighter. The meter isn't very handy anyway.

 

[Gerry M]

Even tho I have wlf & prism finders for both Pentax 67 and H'blad 500 CM, I only use the wlf's.

 

[FrozenInTime]

If you are walking around with the camera ( Hasselblad 50X series ) on a shoulder with a small lens ( 60/80/100 etc. ) , the prisms unbalance the camera - tipping it so it does not hang as well.
The WLF also has higher magnification.
I would only use a prism when tracking of moving subjects is required.

 

[Calzone]

Pentax 67II: AE prism with 75/2.8 AL and longer, but WLF for 45/4.0 and 55/4.0.

Cal

 

[nikon_sam]

My first Mamiya m645 came with the Prism and I like using it but then I bought the WLF and it opened up a whole new style of shooting...I have three m645's two with the WLF and one with the Prism...

 

[unixrevolution]

I have a Pentax 6x7 with both the metered prism finder and the folding WLF. The folding WLF is for landscapes and critical focusing/zone system type shots, whereas if I'm shooting handheld I'm using the metered prism. I find if I need to get a shot in a hurry, an eye-level finder helps. The critical difference here is a Pentax peculiarity: No meter for the WLF, and only 90% coverage for the prism, so when metering NOW isn't important or I want super-accurate composition, I use the WLF.

 

[Dwig]

Personally, back in the day I preferred WL finders EXCEPT when using rectangular format SLRs (MF or 35mm) that lack a revolving back. Shooting a vertical image with a WL finder on a Mamiya M645 is a pain in the neck except in a few special situations.

 

[jim_jm]

I use the 45-degree prism finder on my Bronica SQ-A most often. It has a diopter adjustment and I can focus and frame quicker than with the WLF. It's more comfortable to use than the standard prism finder as I don't have to hold the camera up to eye level. I can keep my elbows tucked against my body which feels more stable.

 

[FrankS]

Hasselblad chimney finder too. 🙂

Also have WL and prism finder. Use the WL finder most due to size and weight. I'd love to get a metering prism though.

 

[Morry Katz]

I have the wl, chimney and 45o prism finders for my Rollei SL 66E. I use the prism finder
most of the time.

 

[CMur12]

For me, composing on a WLF groundglass is a very different experience from doing so through an eye-level finder. Perhaps because I am viewing the screen with both eyes, I am much more sensitive to placements and alignments. It's like laying out the composition on a canvas.

This, of course, works best with square format or something like an RB-67/RZ-67 with rotating back. I think if I had a 645 camera I would use it most with a prism finder, to facilitate changes between horizontal and vertical.

- Murray

 

[Ben Z]

I'm not very tall so at close subject distances a WLF (even with my eye to the flip-up magnifier, which I always did) forces me to tilt the camera up causing some keystoning distortion. Plus I don't use it often enough to remain facile at moving the camera the opposite direction from a subject moving across the field of view. When I owned Hasselblads I prefered the 90 degree non-metered prism. I have one for my Rolleiflex 2.8F also. It adds signifcant weight and bulk, and my MX doesn't accept a prism without modification, so when I traveled with those I used the eye level sports finder (they both have a mirror that allows magnified central focusing at eyelevel, albeit the image is upside down.