WLF on 6x45

[ian_grandjean]

<p>I read somewhere in a recent post that "<em>Bear in mind too that you do need a prism on a 6x4.5 camera.</em>" and I'd like to know why please?</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>It's difficult to use a WLF when you have a 645 camera in portrait orientation because they do not have rotatable film backs. You'd have to use the WLF from the side instead of looking down into it. No worries if you only shoot landscape orientation.</p>

[ian_grandjean]

<p>I agree with you - but what I was really asking was who invented the 'rule' that one <em>has</em> to use a prism - seems to me a WLF is perfectly adequate for many applications...</p>

[paul_gardener]

<p>Keep in mind the prism <strong><em>has</em></strong> to be a 90° version!</p>

[ian_grandjean]

<p>Is the colour important?</p>

[paul_gardener]

<p>No, not as long as you are doing B/W.</p>

[graham_mitchell]

<p>This might be true for Hasselblad cameras but not all 645 cameras. The Rollei has a rotating 645 back, for example, which works with the WLF. See <strong>http://tinyurl.com/okzfqs</strong></p>

[gary_watson]

<p>Nothing's carved in stone but it's a matter of utility. Get one and see for yourself. Think through shooting portrait orientation with a WLF and see if the problem becomes obvious. You'll look a bit like Jurgen Prochnow in "Das Boot" if that's OK with you.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>WLF were made for many 645 systems, so, clearly, they must be useful. I prefer a WLF for tripod work, but I'm no longer shooting 645 (it is an excellent format, IMHO).</p>

[russ_britt3]

<p>You guys are all missing the point (it is a rule) it can not be tampered with, or you will all be in trouble....<br>

But go ahead and do it, if thats what you want, but seriously, moving the camera like that might bump all the emulsion off the film. <br>

Some people never learn to just follow the rules, you should never question the rules.... as to who invented the rule? Rules were here before we all got here......just follow them.<br>

Please.....</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>It depends on model of the camera, whether you would need a prism or not. Pentax 645, for example, does not have interchangeable viewfinders. There are many others that don't. It just depends on how the camera body was constructed. The film format itself doesn't have to do with whether or not a separate prism assembly is needed. </p>

[ian_grandjean]

<p>Thank so much Russ, I was a little worried about this too, but didn't dare ask here. (I did ask on the "wachine machine" forum but I'm still waiting for a reply)<br>

What a relief.... :-)</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>If you shoot 645 you may find a WL is a useful addition - I shoot one with my Mamiyas sometimes. As people have said it is useful for tripod work and is often very handy for macro work so long as you shoot landscape format. Despite the comments there is no rule - I find that a prism is useful on the Fuji 6x8 despite the fact that it has rotating backs and a superb WL magnifying finder (the prism is useful as it allows you to bring the camera higher on the tripod and shoot from eye level).<br>

The prism is an andvantage on many 645 systems as it provides metering (saving you carrying a lightmeter) and allows you to use the camera like an SLR. Since I like shooting MF I find that I shoot the Mamiya 645s with a prism and use them when I am out hiking or climbing - much as I would an SLR. This compact size is the great advantage of most 645 systems - indeed my Mamiya 645 Pro with a 55mm and 80mm lens and metering prism is actually about the same size and weight as my 5DII with the 34-70 f2.8 zoom lens.<br>

If you are trying to choose between a camera with a built in viewfinder (say the Pentax) or an interchangeable one like the Mamiya Pro I would not be heavily influenced by the fixed viewfinder issue (fixed backs are more of an issue) as both camera are very good.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>"I read somewhere in a recent post that "<em>Bear in mind too that you do need a prism on a 6x4.5 camera.</em>" and I'd like to know why please?"<br>

That isn't a set rule. It's one person's opinion. While you do need one for portrait mode.It isn't needed at all for lanscape.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>"While you do <em>need</em> one for portrait mode."</p>

<p>;-)</p>

[paul_gardener]

<p>I am not so sure of that.<br>

Users of view cameras know what it means to see an image upside down since ages........</p>

[paul_gardener]

<p>Gary,</p>

<p>Thanks for reminding me of a great film directed by Wolfgang Petersen.<br>

Twelve years after Das Boot he directed "In the line of fire" with Clint Eastwood.</p>

[ross_macdonald]

<p>And then there are the 645 rangefinders, by Fuji and Bronica, that have neither prisms nor WLF's, and are normally in portrait mode.</p>

[robert_creason2]

<p>Remember 'Rules only establish baselines from which to deviate'.</p>

 

[janne_moren]

<p>I use a WLF on my Pentax67, and it is indeed possible to shoot in portrait mode. It takes a bit of practice to realize the controls are switched 90°, and you look a little silly, but it is doable. I like WLF (easy to use with glasses), I mostly shoot landscape, and as the prism finder alone is a third of the weight of the camera I find the tradeoff more than acceptable.</p>

 

[jack_welsh]

<p>Maybe one doesn't need one for portrait mode. But, if a person wants to hold a 645 SLR sideways, then, go ahead. Maybe my previous post was for SLR's only. But, I felt that's what the OP was refering to.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>Not, to confuse anyone. I'll add that I was reffering to using a WLF on a 645 SLR in Portrait mode. People complain about the reverse image on a WLF on a SLR/TLR. Then, try to shoot a portrait with a WLF with the camera sideways!</p>

[paul_gardener]

<p>No problem Jack,<br>

Users of view cameras do it all the time even with a black cloth over their heads!</p>

 

[ralph_jensen]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>I read somewhere in a recent post . . . .<br>

. . . who invented [this] 'rule'?</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>I would not read too much into one person's opinion or assume that it's some sort of "rule."</p>

<p>I might write, "To get the most out of the [$4000] Leica MP body, you <em>must </em> try the [$4000] 35mm Asph lens" and I wouldn't expect someone to create an entire thread challenging this "rule."</p>

[paul_gardener]

<p>You are right Ralph:</p>

<p>Who invented this rule?<br /><a href="../medium-format-photography-forum/00UAf0">http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00UAf0</a><br>

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=282122">Q.G. de Bakker</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 12, 2009; 11:26 a.m.</p>

<p>Yet neither Contax nor Mamiya are a lot smaller than a 6x6 Hasselblad. If at all.<br />So don't be swayed by the size thing too soon. ;-)<br /><em>Bear in mind too that you do need a prism on a 6x4.5 camera.</em><br>

<em> </em></p>