Shooting with a WLF

[curmudgeon]

My first camera almost 60 years ago was a 127 Brownie. I moved on from there to a 35mm RF, then a MF TLR, then a 35mm SLR and eventually to a digital P&S. When I returned to film several years ago I went through a lot of my old B&W negatives and found that the MF ones are my favorites. What I like most about them is the square format which seems to fit the way I see things and the lower point of view of a WLF, particularly for photos of people like this one from about 1966. To me it seems less intrusive than the higher point of view of a RF or SLR.

--Doug

 

[Fliger747]

True, unless you are shooting children or midgets, you are not sticking it in their face!

BTW, the new eye phone is a square format for photos!

Cheers: t

 

[HassyLover]

I still have the WLF for my Hassy but I have not used it in years, I much prefer the eye level finder, especially because it makes critical focusing a lot easier for me. I have a microprism/split image screen for mine and I love using it over the traditional ground glass screen.

I have both 6x6 and 6x4.5 backs for my 500C/M and although 6x6 is certainly more convenient to use especially hand held, I still use my 6x4.5 back 80% of the time because I like getting 16 images per 120 roll instead of just 12.

 

[500CMfan]

My 500CM came with a WLF 43 years ago. I hated it. Having used (and still use) 35mm SLR's I just could not get used to it. I swapped it for a PM45 but later a PM90 and makes an absolute world of difference, at least for me.

 

[davidmknoble]

I agree, there is something about moving the camera the opposite way that messes with my brain using the WLF, so I prefer the PM45. But, the WLF does make it more compact (well as much as a 120 can be compact). I use the WLF as a protective cover when I put it in my bag, and if I’m shooting landscape on a tripod, don’t mind it so much. Just depends on what I’m doing.