hahahahaha alot of people think newer is better, but when you see the guts cheapened over the years, more money going into advertising than product, you really see how powerful marketing was for a sinking company at the time... and it worked just enough to keep em alive.
Originally Posted by TareqPhoto
You are reading my mind, i was thinking to do that exactly, but i was not sure how much different in quality between the two and the functionality of both cameras, something inside my head telling me that RZ lenses are better than RB lenses, but i may be wrong.
Anyone can make a Digital print, but only a photographer can make a photograph.
I quite enjoy using the WLF on my Yashica TLR. The lateral reversal doesn't bother me usually, though I'm not trying to follow action with it. There are times where the WLF isn't as practical of course, but then again there are times when an eyelevel finder isn't the best choice either. Like Roger I tend to use it more at chest/neck level. I've also used it turned on its side for eyelevel work, though that gets very disorienting unless I slow down a lot and think everything through, but with more practice, that might get easier. The only other issue is in low light it can get very hard to compose at all, but that's more an issue with the dim screen on this particular camera.
* I'm an analogue enthusiast, trying not to fall into the digital abyss.
* My favorite cameras: Hasselblad SWC, Leica SL, Leica M7, Russian FKD 18x24, Bronica SQ-B and RF645, Rolleiflex T2, Nikon F4s, Agfa Clack and my pinhole cameras
However, the main reason I am looking to buy a prism finder is camera height, particularly for portraits. To have the camera at the height of a human head you could just look directly into a prism, but at that height with a WLF you need to stand on something.
Height is the one reason I will go to a prism. I am using a Rollei 6008, so I get the metering information in the WLF too.
For portraits, I have been told that the ideal position is to have the camera about midway, not equal, in height. So when the model is standing, I am sitting or kneeling and the camera is approximately equal in height to the model's pelvis or midsection.
What is his technique?
Meanwhile, I came to MF with the Pentax 645N system and loved it. Then tried a Rolleiflex and it quickly took over. Yes, I had to get used to the mirror image, but ultimately find the mirror image an advantage, and the WLF a superb plus. Especially if you wear glasses, as I do: I can keep them on with my Rolleiflexes, not with my Pentax.
I loved it so much that I also acquired a Rolleiflex 6008i, which has a WLF, but with meter and interchangeable lenses. It is heavy, though, but handles quite well. It is not sharper than the Xenotar or Planar 2.8 80mm lenses on the TLR, which are indeeed wonderfully silent. I'm going to offload one TLR only because I need the dosh, and I hope to add to my 6008i, and still have a TLR, but otherwise the TLR rules. (I still use my Pentax 645N with 35mm, 135mm, and 150mm lenses. The Pentax also is ergonomically brilliant, has a built-in diopter, and a future upgrade path to the 645D... But the WLF is still my first choice.)
We have remarkably similar gear. I also have the Pentax 645 and 6008i. I have a 67II for good measure. I agree with your assessment of these types.