Viewfinders: what and why of the different types

[johan_de_groote]

I have put this under "beginners" as nothing else seemed to fit it.

 

Last days there have been some questions about specific types of cameras for

specific uses. And something that always pop up is the viewfinder. People

always seem to advocate certain types of viewfinder with a way of taking

pictures. Like:

- street photografy needs a rangefinder

- fine art needs a wlf

- macro needs a SLR

 

It could even be expanded to include types of cameras if you like: view camera

(seems to be advocated for landscape), TLR (for being inconspicious?), SLR etc.

 

I must admit I never gave the viewfinder much tought. And I must be honest that

apart from the obvious difficulty with rangefinders/TLR and macro work I don't

really see why a specific type of camera/viewfinder would be an advantage for

certain work. Maybe because I always worked with SLR type cameras.

 

So could those who feel inclined comment on why certain types of cameras/

viexfinders/combinations work better in certain circumstances please do so.

 

My take on it:

- prisma/SLR: most natural view as you take from eye level.

- WLF/SLR: don't see any advantage except possible magnification. More

difficult to use handheld. Low perspective is a disadvantage unless your

subject is at those heights (children, animals, flowers). I feel always I'm

looking up to things through it.

- WLF/TLR: same as above, added paralax problems sometimes. Only advantage a

bit less noisy but this will probably depend on camera.

- rangefinder: same as SLR but a bit less noisy depending on camrea I guess.

Sometimes added paralax problem. The small view makes me feel uncertain about

what will be on the photo.

- view camera: mystery to me...

 

The first 4 types I have around but not all actively used, just played with

them and dismissed. Do I miss something?

[q.g._de_bakker]

Johan,<br><br><i>"prisma/SLR: most natural view [...]"</i><br>That is exactly one of its disadvantages: using a prism, you are looking 'through' the camera at the subject. Almost ("natural view") as if there is no camera. The result is that you indeed are looking at, and interacting with, the subject, not the image the camera will 'form', and it is all too easy to forget about composition and framing.<br>Conversely, the not "straight at it" view the waist level finder provides makes you consider what you see as an image that needs to be composed. It makes photography a more deliberate and thoughtfull process.<br>(Also the case when the image is upside down too, as it is on the focussing screen of a view camera).<br><br>You also mention the lower point of view that results from using a waist level finder. That too is not all (or even almost not) disadvantage. Prism finders, with their "natural view", 'ignore' the fact that there are many, many ways of looking at things, and the everyday eye-level view is by no means the one that produces the best images.<br>But the same, of course, holds for the waist level finder: the lower view, though often very good, is not the best for every possible subject either.<br><br>Using a waist level finder hand held is something that requires getting used to, yes. But it is a skill quickly mastered, and then it really is not hard at all to do.

[charles_stobbs3]

They all have their advocates but as a lifelong eyelevel camera user several factors ocur to me. You originally noticed a possible photo at eyelevel and must then decide if it is worth taking at waist level. Also most modern viewfinder cameras have framelines with extra space showing outside the frame lines which sort of preview how to best compose the picture and if someone is about to move into the composition. Reflexes don't show you what to expect if you recompose. And if you depend on the screen for focussing instead of using the scale a TLR has problems getting the two lenses to be exactly in focus at the same setting and is like carrying two cameras to get one picture. IMHO

[tak_l._poon1]

I use both the prism and the waist-level hood. There are several advantages of the hood, actually.

 

One advantage very obvious to medium format users but not so obvious to 135 users is the weight of the prism. It adds a ton to the camera, since it is at least a fist-sized mass of solid glass.

 

A second advantage that I have appreciated with time is the perspective when photographing people. At eye-level with a standard lens you get an eye-level perspective of a portrait. But with waist-level you get a whole-body shot as if you were looking at some one walking or standing while sitting down. This is able to convey to the viewer of the photograph a more relaxed mood.

 

Finally, as least with my own personal preference, I find that I can detect and eliminate a disturbing out of focus foreground object (such as a twig or part of a fence) more easily with the waist level finder.

 

IMHO.

 

Cheers

 

Tak

[BrianS1664879711]

"I must admit I never gave the viewfinder much tought. And I must be honest that apart from the obvious difficulty with rangefinders/TLR and macro work I don't really see why a specific type of camera/viewfinder would be an advantage for certain work."

 

I've used them all and heard all of the discussion (it seems). My opinion is that all of the various viewfinder systems have pros and cons, but it largely gets down to the photographer's familiarity with the system and the job at hand.

 

Fast-paced photography work is easier for me to conduct with either SLR or RF. I don't see much of a difference between the two in terms of the ease-of-use of viewfinder or focusing.

 

Slow-paced work (including macro) can be done with almost any viewfinder. I don't find the parallax a problem since parallex compensators exist for the systems I use, where parralax is an issue. I do prefer Ground Glass (GG) viewing, though. Even GG viewing, whether waist-level or on the back of a view camera, has its problems - sun glare and the need to hide under a hood to see the GG image clearly.

 

Regarding WL... I have almost never used a WL viewfinder at waist level. Being rather short I find the view often not what I want. I use them as a NOSE-LEVEL FINDER.

[jean-louis llech]

Johan,<br>

Many people think exactly the contrary. First, there are no <i>"obvious difficulties with rangefinder/TLR"</i> People who say that, most of the time, never tried one, or didn't try long enough to appreciate them.<br>

I currently use waist level finders, and groundglass focusing on MF or LF cameras. I use too rangefinder focusing (with a viewfinder for framing and composition). Both are very accurate and most friendly looking for people who are photographied. Nothing is more aggressive that "aiming" through a prism on a SLR. Don't you think that people can consider a SLR in the same manner that a gun ?<br>

Using a waist level finder on a TLR looks more like a humble and respectful attitude.<br>

Groundglass focusing and framing gives a wider field of view, while TTL focusing confines any photographer in the angle of view of the lens. Now, when I think to that, I realize that I did not throw a glance at anything directly through a lens since more that 20 years : TLR, SLR with waist level finder, field camera with groudglass, and rangefider/viewfinder.<br>

I have practically forgotten what TTL means.<p>

 

Brian,<br>

You write : <i>"Even GG viewing, whether waist-level or on the back of a view camera, has its problems - sun glare and the need to hide under a hood to see the GG image clearly"</i>.<br>

That was never a problem : did you often see a photographer looking through a bare groundglass on a view camera or on a TLR ?<br>

All TLR have a folding viewing hood which is a part of the camera. Concerning view or field cameras, there are also protective folding hoods for viewing, and, on a tripod, a focusing cloth is still useful.<br>

I can assure to you that I never saw any sun glare under a focusing cloth.<br>

;>)

[johan_de_groote]

Food for tought abviously. But I don't get any good arguments that convince me to try anything else than the prism/slr setup.

 

Sure, it is a heavier. This is part of the reason I ask this question. Lugging aroung the Kiev and Pentacon with their prisms isn't much fun. What is the difference when looking through a rangefinder and looking through a prism? Not much in my opinion. But I never tought of it as aggresive and certainly never made the connection with a gun. Maybe because I seldom photograph people.

 

And as for angle of view...well that is only a difference with a rangefinder isn't it? I mean a view camera with GG or a tlr both only show the view as it will be seen by the lens. Or not?

 

Also the "obvious difficulties with rangefinders" I refer to are only for very close working. I have used one (a few times) and for most shots this doesn't represent a problem. But once you start coming close up (a few cm to a few tens of cm) I have no idea how this could work.

 

Any toughts about stability when working hand held?

[simon_leung3]

For me to mount a prism onto my RB67. I might as well buy a Nikon F3 HP,it defeats the purpose of owning medium format.

 

I don't like the fact that I lose 0.95% viewing coverage with the prism on the standard lens on my Mamiya.

[BrianS1664879711]

"I can assure to you that I never saw any sun glare under a focusing cloth."

 

Some times it sneaks in from underneath the cloth. :) Maybe "glare" was too extreme of a term to use.

[johnw436]

I am of the same opinion as Mr. de Bakker. An eye level prism is great for following action and interacting with the subject. When I need to wait for just the right moment in a facial expression to snap the shutter this is the easiest way to go.

 

The WLF is key when it is the overall composition I am after. After all, it's exactly the same thing as using the back LCD on a digicam. People love these things because you are looking AT the picture you're going to get. You aren't looking AROUND inside the scene.

 

How does one look at photos? It's fun to hold your nose to them and study fine details, moving your eye over tiny pieces of the image. That's an eye level finder. But to enjoy the image in its entirety most people will then hold the image out at arms length and see it as a whole. That's a WLF. The great thing about a WLF is the little pop-out magnifier that allows your eye to noodle around inside the image for fine detail the way you can with an eye level prism.

 

I get much more compelling images using a WLF because I'm looking at the image the way I'd see it on the wall. It certainly is a much more intuitive way to photograph.

 

That last statement might be hard to believe for someone who has spent years pushing their eyeball into a small square hole! Consider this: There is an entire generation of kids growing up today that don't know you can look through an eye level prism. Most digicams don't even have a peep hole anymore. Millions of people will grow up looking the image on the back just as a previous generation grew up looking at a ground glass.

[johnw436]

Brian Shaw,

 

"Regarding WL... I have almost never used a WL viewfinder at waist level. Being rather short I find the view often not what I want. I use them as a NOSE-LEVEL FINDER."

 

 

HILARIOUS!

[jean-louis llech]

Does it smell ?