Can Fuji's 102MP Monster Digital Camera Destroy Kodak Ektar 4x5 Film?

[@sydhughes6041]

I am a retired Advertising photographer who always shot on 8x10 sinar and Schneider lenses back in the day in my London studio. ..I still have the spare shot transparencies in a box (always shot 4 sheets .two spot on and two (in case the client lost the transparency!) side half stop, different,and when I now look at them I am still blown away by the quality of images,and Photoshop etc did not exist, everything done in camera.. Now as a hobby photographer in my 70s i use Fuji digital,with lovely details and convenient to print off at home,but I still prefer my old Advertising shots for the look and feel,and especially when they ended up as huge banner posters on London underground walls. But unless you are into Fine Art photography and film, digital is the most practical. And certainly cheaper with the crazy cost of film now.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

I shot architectural work for years and still marvel at my T64 transparencies. Cost of film, especially in LF is definitely on the edge and extracting that information is not easy. For me it’s all about story telling and film and my film cameras just fit better but I hoped to illustrate just how good digital is now in 2024 not to say stop shooting film but rather isn’t it nice to have meaningful options that fit everyone’s working needs.

[@SavedbybGrace]

I'm similar to you in that I worked as a prog photographer. Albeit as a main strreet portrait studio guy ... not advertising. Retired now and shooting with the current Hasselblad 907x CFV100 and Leica M11P. Nice toys to enjoy making a few happy snaps...😀

[@tommynikon2283]

Same here, US, 44 years advertising….but Sinar F1.

[@PanAmStyle]

I slightly prefer the Ektar because, out of camera, it seems a touch warmer and actually more realistic. It’s not that I have seen that scene with my own eyes, but I’ve seen enough wooden structures like that, including in Vermont, that I think I know the look and feel. That said, I agree that the Fuji is impressive. I’m not sure what film simulations that particular Fuji model offers, but I would guess you could select something that matches Ektar more closely … or of course do so in post. I don’t particularly like post processing, so in camera or on a film I prefer is what I like.

[@dominiclester3232]

@@PanAmStyleLook at 7mins where the grass is much warmer in the Fuji shot.

[@RichardSilvius]

As someone who has no current aspirations to own a medium format digital or to shoot any film larger than 6x7, this was still a fascinating comparison!

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Thank you.

[@sbrazenor2]

I have a medium format digital camera and it's just a pain in the ass the deal with. (It is admittedly much older than current tech.) It has proprietary files that require expensive software, the equipment is bulky and slow, and even old and used it's expensive to get into. When I actually take it out, it captures images that look amazing, but I rarely feel inspired to bring it out because it's just so bulky and slow.

[@dominiclester3232]

@@sbrazenor2Bizarre...I have a 100s and in size and weight it is close to my Nikon D810. Some of my other Nikon’s are much heavier, honestly.

[@tapanpandit5103]

Truest comment. Haha. Was really fun to watch the comparison!

[@TeddyCavachon]

This is really more a comparison between the camera and scanner used to scan the negative. I started making my own B&W prints in 1968, taught myself Adams Zone System B&W in 1970, got hired by Monte Zucker in 1972 to assist him, leaving in 1974 for an opportunity to work at National Geographic in its photo lab where I learned to reproduce photos and artwork for offset printing. From 1977 onwards I managed the production of web offset printing of magazines and transitioned production from 100% analog to 100% digital. The HUGE advantage resolution-wise of digital vs negative / print was elimination of the optics in the reproduction process. Before transparency film was created a color separation use in a magazine or catalog required optically enlarging the negative (and its grain) to make the print, then optically copying the print in a process (copy) camera to make the color separations. Originally that was a two step process. First the color print would be copied to three different sheets of continuous tone B&W film for the CYM printers, then those would be used with contact screens to make the halftone dot CYMK separations needed for printing. The invention of laser drum scanners in the mid-1970s caused the shift to shooting on color transparencies vs negative/print because they could be scanned directly eliminating the resolution diminishing optical steps. But there was a Catch-22-the dynamic range of transparency film is much shorter than that of a color print, which is the limiting factor in the negative/ print system. I color negative has a much longer range than the negative. What I discovered when I started using digital cameras, which I first did in 1994 with a .8MP Apple Quicktake 100, was that digital sensors had a dynamic range similar to shooting on color negative and making prints. But it wasn’t until 2000 when resolution of the sensors reached 3MP that digital files started to replaced transparency film, first in sports and news coverage. I bought a 2.1 Kodak DC290 camera in 2000 because it had a PC connector which allowed me to use my external flashes. Many studio photographers started using that camera for test shots instead of Type 55 Polaroids. What I discovered was same 2:1 / Key:Fill incident lighting ratio which allowed a full range of detail to be recorded in black suits and white wedding dresses in the same photo when making color prints for wedding albums worked to produced full range digital prints. Because I managed an offset printing plant I had a $25k 3M Rainbow Dye Sublimation printer to make my prints on with that camera and was able to get 12”x18” prints, the largest it produced, which were on par or better with optically produced Type-C color prints of a similar size because I’d also started using Photoshop with V1 in 1992 and knew how to resample and used USM optimally. When I upgraded to a 5MP Minolta D7Hi, which had and EVF and live histogram, the results I got after a bit of expert Photoshop tweaking, where much better than any color prints I had made conventionally with an enlarger and chemical prints. The reason I bought that “bridge” camera was because I was waiting for DSLRs to reach 8MP at a price point of around $2000, the most I could justify as a amateur unable to write-off my gear and knowing that a few years. In 2004 I finally retired my trusty well used and loved pair of Nikon F bodies and lenses for a 8.2 MP Canon 20D, 10-22mm, 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 and a pair of 580ex flashes. I upgraded to a 15MP 50D body in 2008 for its 10-bit sensor and improved DR and continued to use it until this year 2024 because it was more than adequate for the volunteer PJ style shooting and studio portraits I was doing for fun, not for hire. One of my guiding principles when spending personally on photo gear has been “Is the extra effort to get to the very top of the mountain worth the difference in the view?” That’s why at college in 1970 learning the Zone System I didn’t buy a 4x5 view camera emulate Ansel Adams and religion based around metering exposure off a Kodak 18% and always printing on #2 grade paper which necessitated: 1) guessing the dynamic range of the scene lighting based on experience he had but I lacked at that point, so; 2) development time of each sheet of film could be matched to range of the #2 print paper. I skipped the metering off the gray card by buying a Honeywell/Pentax 1° meter and altering the ASA rating for the Tri-X I was shooting in my Nikon F until the Zone 1 shadow I metered in the scene was reproduced with Zone 1 density .1 density units above clear base on the negative and a Zone 1 tonal value on the print just above the Zone 0 max black print exposure of dark voids and the black border on the prints created by filing the negative carrier of the enlarger to prove to the world the image was cropped in camera and exposed properly per the gospel of St. Ansel. Instead of guessing the EV range of the scene from experience to adjust development time I was able to directly meter a Zone 9 highlight and determine precisely what development was needed for different ranges to create a “Adams - like” full range tone of detail on my prints. I rolled my own 10 exp 35mm cassettes from a bulk loader so I could bespoke develop the 35mm roll film, shooting 10 exp. bracketed sequence for each photo as a backup to the spot metering. But since most of my photography was done to make some money doing PJ assignments I also adapted my Zone System spot metering technique to the Kodak Polycontrast paper system which used yellow or magenta filtration to change paper grade to match the different density ranges on the negative different lighting contrast produced when basing negative development time on fitting the contrast of a clear “Sunny 16” illuminated subject to the print when the “#2 Magenta” filter was used with the paper. For open shade and overcast conditions the #3 and #4 magenta filters were used to increase the contrast of the print paper and if the scene had more contrast (beach or snowscape) the #1 yellow filter would be used. Figuring that out on my own allowed me to process my film and make perfect prints in minimum time. They were not the dodged and burned artistic Zone System masterworks like a used in the portfolio that helped me get the jobs with Monte and National Geographic but more than adequate for the PJ work I was doing at the time. The same technique of simply adjusting meter ASA setting until Zone 9 highlights metered directly also allowed me to nail exposures when shooting color slides, which I did for credit when selected in my Freshman year to participate and document an off campus study program called Farm Term were 15 students went to live on farms and interact with the local farms and study ecology. The only shortcoming of digital when shooting outdoors is a limited dynamic range shorter than a cross-lit sunny scene which can be overcome by shooting in less contrasty lighting (e.g. light overcast) and normalizing contrast in post processing to avoid the deep shadows containing only noise, or; shoot two frames, one exposing the Zone 9 non-specular white content 1/3 stop below clipping, then a second with a 3-stop lower shutter speed to record the shadows. Then instead of using AI assisted HDR to decide how to blend the two just copy/paste the shadow exposure to create a new layer in the highlight exposure, add a black mask and open it selectively to “paint in” more detail in the shadow around the focal points where you want the viewer’s eye to dwell, leaving it hidden around the boarders. The masking technique - which I started using back when Photoshop first added layers and masks-allows the opacity of the shadow plate to be adjusted to taste from 100% to 0% with the mask edited with soft wide white brush to open or black to correct to “feather in” the amount of shadow detail from edge of frame to focal point. Using that technique I got far better results with my 15MP 50D than I ever did with film, even when making 4x5 internegatives from transparencies which is what the National Geographic color lab did for its display prints made from 35mm Kodachrome originals, using 5x7 and 8x10 internegatives for the larger prints like the 1/4 scale replica of the Sistine Chapel Ceiling which was put on display in Explorers Hall on the ground floor just below our labs on the 2nd every year during the holidays. This year I upgraded to a pair of 24MP R6mkII bodies and RF100-500mm and 800mm f/11 lenses for shooting birds from my back deck along the ICW. Beyond 24MP the sensor reaches the point of having more resolution than the lenses but are “work the climb” if cropping images a lot or making and selling very large prints. I have a lot of admiration for photographers who still make the effort to climb to the top of the mountain carrying a 4x5 or larger and tripod on their back to channel the spirit of St. Ansel and his contemporaries but for me the views captured with a 24MP 35mm size sensor is good enough for me and anyone who is likely to view my photos. 😊

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Yes- with a hybrid approach the scanner is always a huge factor on the quality-- best camera lens and practice will fail if the scanner kills the quality-

[@TeddyCavachon]

@@FIGITALREVOLUTION Thanks for the reply. I’ve got a collection of old B&W and color 35mm and 645 negative and slides and B&W prints I’d like to scan and digitize. What reasonably priced scanner would you recommend for the task? I’m using an M2 Mac mini for editing.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Epson V750 or 850 will be great for prints out to 8.5 x 11 and if you tweak the focus height it’s ok with medium format-- 35mm is much harder- after that you are getting a lot more $$

[@ivaneberle3972]

@@TeddyCavachon Problem in 2024 is that hybrid printing from scanning was no longer commercially viable, and was largely abandoned, after 35mm DSLRs hit 10-12 MP and 13 stops DR. This was essentially over by 2008, the year of the economic crash. Nobody has much improved on scanning tech the past 20 years. PMT scans were initially performed by prepress shops (outside of NatGeo, that is), and those businesses were mostly shuttered by advent of decent desktop CCD scanners 25 years ago. What PMT scanners are left are largely repurposed, orphaned devices kept alive by arcane practitioners of fine art photography

[@TeddyCavachon]

@@ivaneberle3972 Thanks for your reply. What you’ve said is pretty much what I concluded watching reviews (e.g. Epson 850 last updated around 2014). I’ve been burned too many times buying hardware only to have the drivers and software discontinued bricking the device so I guess I’ll just make a copy stand and use my camera like I’ve done in the past. Back in the 1970s working for Monte I made one using his old 4x5 Speed Graphic and Polaroid Type 55 film for copying B&W prints for restoration on a horizontal sled / rail arrangement I made from wood that I attached to the wall with a hinge for storage. I’ve got a wood shop now and can knock out something similar rather easily

[@dustinroderick]

I bought a GFX and I rarely shoot 4x5 anymore. The GFX is such a great tool, it’s the first digital camera that has made me put the 6x7 and 4x5 cameras away. That being said, I still shoot 8x10 and It’s not even about resolution for me, it’s the highlight transitions and tonality that keep me coming back to 8x10. I would shoot 8x10 exclusively if It wasn’t such a hassle to deal with the process in my small NYC apartment, so the GFX still gets the most use these days.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Yep! 8x10 is soooo beautiful

[@sbrazenor2]

I have medium format and full frame cameras, and the camera that I take along with me most of the time is a Sony RX100M7 point and shoot. None of the other stuff fits in my pocket and sometimes portability trumps everything.

[@blackjackpinoko]

Depth of field is very different.

[@Borzoi86]

I "only" have a Fuji X-E3 but have been delighted that I didn't throw away all my old Pentax lenses after I literally threw away my Pentax bodies. Mounting three of my Pentax lenses via an adapter has verified what good glass Pentax made. Yes, manual focus, of course, but doable.

[@norskradiofabrikk]

Back in the day I shot billboard size ads and magazine covers on a Sinar 10 x 8, and that, for me, was the pinnacle of photo quality. Then cost prohibited 10 x 8 work, so it was 5 x 4, and then 6x9cm 120 roll film, and now we're shooting on micro four-thirds. Parallel to this, viewing has evolved from billboards to iPhones, so it would be lunacy to shoot 10x8 for TikTok. For me, the efficient sweet spot for analogue shooting is the 6x9cm format - big enough to make a difference, cheap, convenient and speedy enough to do a fashion shoot. But for today's deliveries smaller sensor digital cameras with their lighter more stabilised lenses with f1.2 or better apertures shooting at ISO 6400 gives us a flexibility we could only dream of back in the day. I'm happy to be alive in times where we still get to choose between film and digital recording!

[@cinnamon--girl]

I use both film and digital cameras. The Fuji digital file you shared appears slightly sharper, which is a strength of digital when optimized. However, the Ektar 4x5 exhibits that distinct film aesthetic derived from its film base, giving it a subtly diffused light effect. While this quality might not be noticeable to everyone, it's something I can see and appreciate, and it's one of the reasons I continue to shoot on film. Thanks, Steve, for sharing all the info you do. PS: I love those sideburns!

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Thank you!

[@Mattrossphoto]

You’re incredibly skilled to pull this test off so closely! Incredible work

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Thank you!

[@mallermedia]

Interesting comparison. First of all, you cracked me up when you said "top to bottom", and like any LF film shooter, you pointed down when you said "top" and up when you said "bottom"! LOL. To my eye, I'm super impressed with the level of detail available with the Fuji. But I also think there is an unfair element to this, which is the scanning of that negative. If you're going to shoot that kind of film, it begs you to use an all-analog process, and evaluate a wet print of that negative, not a scan. And I agree that whatever nuance between the files is likely lost in the video editing process. So bottom line for me is I'm convinced the age of digital being the default has been here for a while. But there is a magic to that film which is inescapable. Thanks for doing this!

[@FLMUSACanada]

I shot 8x10 advertising in the 90s and continued with 8x10 until 2020. I loved the look of film, I loved the process, loved delivering good work. I hated scanning, even though I used a high end Creo Eversmart. Happy to say I will never shoot film again, not worth the hours to me anymore, and there’s no joy in laboring for days on a negative with all of today’s computers and software. We had to get it perfect in-camera, so there was no post-prod. Can’t say enough good things about modern cameras and lenses.

[@fepatton]

Now nearing retirement, I haven’t shot large format seriously in quite a while, but chose the GFX100S as my “last camera”, and it’s really amazing. Like you say, not _quite_ film, but very close and easier to work with. That said, since I was a teenager I’ve wanted to emulate Edward Weston and shoot 8x10 and then contact print it! Might do that in my leisure time. 😊

[@john-ug7nc]

I'm a professional ex wedding photographer. I used the Bronica ETRS system and the Mamaya 645. I'm gonna give the nod to the Fuji 1GFX, But just barely by the narrowest of margins. Thank you for this very good in depth review.

[@iseolake]

Thanks for the video. I am sure the digital workflow makes great economic sense for a professional. As a hobbyist, who now has some time in semi-retirement, I just couldn't bring myself to drop $10,000 on a camera and lens. It just made more sense for me to buy a used Toyo-View for $50, another $75 for a Schneider 180mm MC lens, and spend money on film. It won't be long before the cost of film will catch up to the price of the digital camera, but the whole analog process suits me. I still take digital photos. Mostly to document things. They complement each other.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Nice!

[@kevinbrowne3089]

Yeah, just did the calculation. I could buy and shoot 1,538 sheets of ektar 4x5 (of course you have to develop) at $6.50 per. Taking 50 shots a year it would last me 30 years. I already own the 4x5 camera and all I need to shoot and process. But yeah. If I had the money, I would love to have the GFX!

[@TheTigers00001]

Thank you for this great comparison. I am absolutely amazed that the Fujifilm GFX got close to the large format film shot. You are talking about one of the best lenses with a very fine-grained film on a 4x5 format. The time taken to take such a shot with measuring exposure, critically focusing and then shooting, let alone processing the film and then scanning it making sure the negative is relatively free of dust, is immeasurably more than the comparative point and shoot of the digital camera. And for totally still subjects, you can do a 400MP pixel shift image too!

[@nevvanclarke9225]

I have the GFX100S ii and I love it already. I've had it for about six weeks and it's an amazing camera and great video. Comparing I think for the majority of people out there they're probably gonna go digital but it's great to see someone who can actually do a test like this and pull it off really well. I would say the digital file is overexposed. I'm a professional landscape photographer and I'm not sure about film because I haven't shot film for a long time but both images look probably one to 2 stops over exposed in my opinion and if you were shooting this for a client you would under expose a fraction and bring up the shadows on the numberplates on the shed very easily but once you've clipped a highlight it's pretty much impossible. That's just a little bit of feedback but I know you know what you're doing but the point you were making about the highlight. It was to me over exposed, I don't know if that was deliberate or not

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Was actually using the histogram- the highlight is not clipped in the plate- just checked- just too close to the edge!

[@nevvanclarke9225]

@@FIGITALREVOLUTION yeah, sorry mate I didn't mean to criticise. It's really good. Actually it's always a tricky one when you've got light shining on the side of something because that is difficult. I shot film years ago but the reason I don't is just the cost of it now but it's an awesome camera the GFX I love it. It's so good.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Yeah in my next post which comes in about an hour I went deeper into that raw file and really bright shiny things kinda confuse the sensor --

[@nevvanclarke9225]

@@FIGITALREVOLUTION look forward to seeing it one of the reasons I use that GFX camera and you might think this is crazy but I live in Australia and the light here is so harsh some of the time so having a huge dynamic range of a GFX camera has actually made my landscape photography much easier to do with the harsh Australian sun... But what you can do with the GFX100S ii file is absolutely absurd. I know it photographers we always say this, but I can't imagine owning another camera. I'm 54 now and I can never imagine using another camera. I've only ever had four cameras but this one just blows them out of the park.

[@jeffrogers4251]

I’ve always wondered about this comparison thx so much! I have the Fuji and am blown away at the quality files it produces.

[@gohumberto]

Wow, that Fuji!!! Look at the detail in that Barn Door hinge! Quite extraordinary really. I remember experts saying you'd never match film for resolution. That was around 2001. Now we have 100Mp cameras on our phones. We're living in Science Fiction.

[@leedodge4227]

This was a very good comparison. As it is, the difference for me was the shadows. The 4x5 had the advantage in the shadows and DoF, but I know how much highlights can be recovered and shadows can be brought up, along with contrast, clarity, sharpness and everything else that can so easily be tweaked to your exact desire. The point is both mediums were well represented, but the speed and versatility of digital has the edge.

[@markryanphoto]

it's all about the scan. I purchased a Fujifilm Celsius 6250 drum scanner in the late 90s and I've scanned and retouched hundreds of transparencies of mainly 10x8 and 5x4 for numerous photographers and ad agencies which were mainly destined for large outdoor usage and fine screen magazines and film and that scanner was never found wanting and as a consequence I've never been over enamoured with any of the great digital cameras I have owned until I purchased the GFX 100S at launch which I felt generated astounding files on par with film and a good scanner and without the struggles with grain but since upgrading to the GFX 100 II I would never go back. That camera with the GF110mm is optical excellence and the GF45mm is not far behind. It's an absolute joy to work with and I am constantly amazed at the detail, tonal range and most of all the tonal transitions in the files.. I enjoyed your video and your pose good questions thanks :)

[@Fujik1966]

Yes, GF110mm. and GF45mm the Best.

[@paulred158]

I loved shooting my mamiya 7 for the last 20 years until film prices increased from 6 or 7 NZD to 35NZD ( New Zealand dollars) per roll of 120, adding to that was the greatly reduced quality of lab work as the pro labs either shut down or just stopped caring about film, the final straw was having 10 rolls of 120 ruined by the supposed’ pro lab’ because they were too cheap to change their chemistry after a holiday break. Sold the mamiya bodies and bought into the GFX system, I still prefer the look of the (colour) film scans but the GFX sytem is very good, I just need to spend more time getting the images to a place I like. 4x5 colour was so ridiculously expensive it was never an option. Nice video.

[@whfowle]

I shoot both digital and film. However, I have never shot 4x5 which I can only imagine is very good. I currently shoot 6x4.5, 6x7 and 6x9 in film. I have always wanted to get a cleaner picture than I can get with the 6x9. I do some digital with my Canon 50MB 5DSr but I really want to go to Fujifilm 50r. Your test shows that at 102MB, the digital is almost the same as 4x5. To answer your question, looking at the images on KZbin where everything is compressed, they look almost the same. But you were using a very high quality scanner that I would never be able to use. So, in a practical sense, I would only be able to get and use the Fuji digital. It is still a little higher price than I am willing to pay so it is only a dream at this time.

[@PhotoArtBrussels]

Before you buy, loan or rent the camera's. The 100S auto-focus system is so much better, let alone the 2 new ones. I love the GFX; the 16bit images carry a lot of micro-detail; once you have seen it, you spot the highly capable camera. I use it in studio and for street. When i feel crazy i can use older medium format lenses; or even focal reducer; providing the exact view as it did in the film MF camera for Pentacon Six, Pentax 6x7, Hasselblad 6x6, there are even native Fuji adapters for Hasselblad V lenses as Fuji used to produce those.

[@javixo1997]

Very interesting comparison! You don't see these kinds of contenders everyday. It's amazing to think that we have had this picture quality for decades and it isn't even 8x10 or even bigger. I have a Mamiya 7 and a Sony a7Riv, I'll post something one day when I make a direct comparison but from what I've seen in the real world, the Mamiya with Ektar is very comparable to the Sony in terms of detail!

[@tamasnemeth2161]

Fun fact: there was a comparison between 8x10 velvia and a Phase One IQ4 150MP (big brother of this sensor) back in 2020 (just google "compare phase one 8x10", it should show up, it was in the "On Landscape" British magazine), which concludes that 8x10 is just marginally better than the Phase One back. I also made a very unscientific test 5-6 years ago when I was "scanning" my 4x5 films with a Phase One 100Mp archival camera (iXG). The only images I could see more details on the negative under magnifier glass were ortho film negatives. Any film with lower resolution (panchromatic, C41, E6) were rendered adequately with that camera.

[@erichstocker8358]

A really good comparison between film and "medium format" Fuji digital. I think for people that "make money with their cameras" this review provides highly useful information. Being an amateur I don't have to worry about the "money" justification. That is why I left "professional" photography. So, the big thing for me is that I enjoy the process of film. So, shooting 4x5 is just more enjoyable to me than shooting digital (and I own lots of digital cameras). I also enjoy the film development process. So, besides any resolution or color advantages, I just enjoy the entire film process.

[@frstesiste7670]

It's always interesting to see a comparison digital vs large format film. One aspect of digital I rarely see mentioned is how easy it is to bracket or do panoramas if you need more DR or resolution than you get from a camera. I know, it's not one shot, but if you don't mind that I bet you could set up the Fuji, do a four or even six frame panorama with bracketing of each frame in a lot less time than setting up the 4x5. Of course, not all scenes can be done with multiple exposures but most likely 99% of what is shot on 4x5 could. Personally I shoot some rolls of film (only 35mm) each year, but it's mostly for nostalgic reasons (and seeing a good slide is till special) and not for DR or better resolution.

[@dimitripapadimitriou2915]

Great to hear this! BTW had you used f16 on film as opposed to f32 you would have an increase of 30% in resolving power from film as diffraction reduces image quality as you stop down! If you had focused on a subject at infinity or 1000 times the focal length of the lens you could almost shoot wide open!The results of the 4x5 then would be almost twice as good as the image surface area is at least 2x the sensor ! The color of the film is more pleasing with a little better local contrast inherent to EKTAR films! Bravo thank you for doing this! I agree with you!

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Hello Dimitri- It’s been a few years!! yep but wanted a bit more DOF without having to use any of the camera movements as that would have been unfair. Infinity is always awesome but my point of focus was like 20 feet- remember reading The Ins and Outs of Focus - great read! Cheers from VT!

[@BB-ft6nd]

Your video was fantastic. The new digital medium formats are the natural upgrade path for medium format film cameras. I liked the 4 x 5 picture more, if I had the time, a good developer with a good drum scanner and unlimited funds, I'd use the 4 x 5, but I never have enough time or money. So, I use a 50mp medium format a lot these days.

[@JamesCormier]

Hi Steve. I know how heavily invested you are with film. A well balanced and fair assesment, with concessions made to both mediums. The digital technology today has finally matured, whereas it has always been an uphill climb these last thirty years. Things are leveling off, at least in the realm of ordinary exposures. I find film can still hold its own in special projects, such as in extreme highlights and extreme exposure lengths - not minutes, but hours. Allot can be done with RAW files of course. Digital is a much simpler and faster work flow. That being said, I still prefer the rendering of film, and I enjoy pushing its limitations beyond ordinary exposures. I'm looking forward to your upcoming and related segment using B&W materials.

[@bugbiteaudio]

The film seems better by a tiny bit. Great comparison!!!!

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Thank you!

[@fmphotooffice5513]

9:25 Once your scan records beyond the film grain you're running into problems. Yes, 35mm became an art form using a movie strip compared to digital equivalents maybe 25 years ago. Film will always be a magical process to me. The transformation inside my stainless tanks and handling 120 film is essential for me. Today the digital equivalent to 4x5 is coming soon. Excellent presentation. New sub.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Welcome!!!

[@phfx]

Well done test and observations. I went the X2D route for stills and am a former Phase One owner. Phase One's IQ4 is the only thing that is technically higher resolution than these newer middle format cameras, but the system is showing it's age a bit in some ways. Film will always have a bit of charm in that subtle halation and inherit color/tone characteristics of the stock, and in this case, you can see a bit more highlight information retained. But moderately we were on the same wavelength as I was looking for something a bit more portable and about 4x5-ish in quality, though the format sizes are wildly different.

[@largophoto]

thank you for taking the time to do an interesting comparison......I use both Sony and Olympus..(pixel shifting ..MFT one would struggle to find difference between Fuji GFX ...and Steve as you rightly said with generative it becomes a moot point ...however the reason I jump back to the Mamiya Film Press camera ..is the tilt shift functionality ..and of course close up ..might be worth while revisiting in 6 * 6 film format ..( which you kind of did with selective cropping )

[@bizpixvegas7651]

I shot Hassy back in film days and loved it but never went beyond medium format film. As a digital photographer, I like the Fuji 100MP files. However, for a more reasonable cost, I got a Sony A7RIV and Tamron lenses. I have no direct comparison between the two sensors but I have printed single frame Sony files as large as 60"x90" on canvas and the results are good enough for gallery display. I prefer the Fuji colors but shooting RAW, I can tweak the Sony colors to taste.

[@michaellong2661]

I've been a medium format junkie since probably forever. I've owned Mamiyas, Hasselblads, Bronicas, a couple Fuji film cameras, even digital Hasselblads, and now a Fuji GFX50S. It's the first medium format camera that's practical for everything I do. The real advantage the Fuji has over any film camera is the flexibility in the files. Yes, Ektar gives an incredible negative and prints extremely well, but scans (in my experience) aren't as easy to manipulate into exactly what you want as the raw files are. Don't get me wrong, I still shoot with my grandparents' old Franka folder and intend on acquiring another GX680 (those things are incredible) and i actually enjoy developing film, but the GFX's output is just so much easier to work with.

[@lanceevans1689]

Thanks for the comparison. And letting us look fondly back at the Jobo tools we used to use! On my monitor the Fugi looked better across the board. Better color, sharpness, contrast, etc. But even if they were the same, the odds of the current wife being as accepting of me smelling like STOP BATH and FIX, as my first wife was decades ago, is slim to none.

[@cameronwilson8561]

Wow, the Fuji GFX is a seriously amazing camera. I would have to agree with you I think the Ektar gave a more pleasing look to the timber but I think the Fuji did a better job of the slate roof. Everything else is neither here nor there.

[@marcelrothmund2447]

Awesome, thank you for this wonderful comparison. I use digital FF for my pictures, but in former times 1970-2001 I used 35mm film black & white and color and developed the monochromes myself. What I really like about analog photography is the (imho) larger dynamic range and richer tonal color of these photos. So I must say, for me the Kodak Ektar was more pleasant to my eye. This is totally personal. I am only an enthusiast photographer. 😎

[@tundrusphoto4312]

A very interesting comparison. Thank you for this.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Yep!

[@CP23798]

I didn't think it was close. Film, head and shoulders above, both in color and in clarity.

[@williamfurniss1803]

Great video as ever, thank you! The advantages of being able to stop down and manage focus with any lens on the larger format mean that I think the 4x5 wins on a good day. But the digital is going to be so much more practical to shoot with, just being able to shoot higher iso's and stop those leaves moving is a big deal!

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Yes indeed.

[@gerryhardman9060]

All I can say is wow. Look at the detail. I’m glad I kept my 4x5 and 5x7 cameras and l really enjoyed the video comparison. I didn’t read all the comments but what about price difference? The Fuji with a good lens is what, 8-9000 dollars and a cheap 4x5 Graphlex with a good $300 lens adds up to say $650? I think this should also be a consideration? The Fuji is convenient and quick whereas large format is contemplative it teaches you patience to wait for the right light. But if you need a quick work flow and need big blow ups for your clients The Fuji gives you quick turn around which can be a huge benefit. But for those of us hobbyists film is the way to go. I love Ektar. Regards Gerry

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

I’m working on a part 2 now with BW film and in that conclusion will be going over cost and other details--

[@andresmontero1908]

Nice comparison. Letting quality out of the discussion, I think I could somehow afford a Fuji GFX 100s and a lens, and take it anywhere to work. I think I could not do the same (buying and travelling), about your beautiful 4x5. Not talking about times of processing etc. Anyway, it´s good to know how high quality is growing. It gives confidence and hopes. Thank you.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

You are welcome!

[@Ces1um]

They’re both great! I do prefer how the ektar renders the sunlight on the grass. To my eye it looks more natural. So much more work involved to get that image though.

[@Austinite333]

Very close overall. Now at minute 7 the film shows more detail/separation in the green grass which is something I always found film to be good at. I shoot with a 5x7 and a Nikon D810. Practically speaking the Nikon gives me all the detail I need to see. Now I love the look of B&W film in all formats when I get it right but sometimes wonder why I bother with film and it’s involved processing but still I do.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

For me the cameras I use will never have a practical digital solution so film just works and looks great but this test was a big eye opener with regards to how far digital has progressed

[@johnpeterson7264]

Fuji and Hasselblad’s medium format digital cameras are indeed amazing and finally it seems that we can say that perhaps digital is beginning to approach what film can offer, at least in the scenario where we restrict our workflow to scanning a film image and proceeding digitally thereafter. For silver gelatin prints on the exhibit wall I think there remains a chasm of difference between film and digital.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Years ago I tested inkjet paper for most of the makers from Canson to Hahnemühle and beyond BUT never really loved the look compared to gelatin silver I would make in my wet darkroom- it was the main reason I spent the next 25 years working on hand made uncoated papers in most cases - just felt better for my works.

[@TheNathanMChannel]

One thing is for sure, both options will destroy my bank account! Heh! But holy moley, I'm impressed that you were able to get two shots on entirely different formats THAT close. If I had to choose I'd be shooting the Linhof, because my god what a beautiful camera. Though it does not shoot video to be fair. (gotta get the IMAX roll adapter back for a slight upcharge) I'd love to get my hands on a drum scanner, which in theory seems as stupid a purchase as the time I bought a 24" inkjet printer, BUT I think it might be less stupid because the drum scanner will probably still work if I don't use it for a week. You're right about hitting that threshold where making the film grain any bigger is just a waste of pixels. It's fun to get to that point, though. Thanks for the pixel peeping, I enjoyed it!

[@Forstus]

prefer the film, mainly on the color of the greens (which can be edited on the Fuji) and because highlight sharpness on the digital is too much, can be broken with some blur or filter and zero sharpening from the RAW. Also the Shadows on film are just nicer imho.

[@FredSchill]

Really good video! Naturally I like the film image more but it’s just amazing that you get this quality from an affordable digital camera. The only issue I see with the Fuji in comparison to 4x5 is that shooting feels just the same as with my Nikon Z5. Shooting my 4x5 field camera gets me into a totally different mindset and that’s just the best thing ever. One question? Why did you shoot the APO at f32 of all stops? My 150mm APO Symmar gives visible diffraction from f16, wouldn’t go over that unless I really need the dof, so no wonder your big scan wasn’t any sharper!

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

The diffraction is not a huge issue- really- the loss in sharpness at this film size is minimal especially when you see a print

[@FredSchill]

@@FIGITALREVOLUTION off course, a print doesn’t show this but we were talking about your big Imacon scan. So I guarantee you can see diffraction when you scan at 3200 or more dpi! Btw I usually scan 4x5 only at 2400dpi since my V700 doesn’t have more resolution but recently experimented with dslr scanning for really high resolution images. I still have a few sheets 4x5 Techpan and look forward to test the limits of both film and optics!

[@Draciel360]

Really cool comparison, awesome video. I personally prefer the film shot and am amazed at how good it looks straight from development, though I know with some tweaking the digital file could probably be tweaked to look (almost) indistinguishable.

[@janradtke8318]

The best comparison I have seen so far. However, I would disagree with regard to pop and covering detail, which I see much more on the Fuji side (which may be KZbin compression talking). However, very few 4x5 or larger format photographers will be able to go for Imacon scanning, which is prohibitively expensive (in addition to film&development cost), but will use the Epson 800/850. Most will also shoot ISO 400, which looses a little more quality, to keep exposure short. So in practice film will lose compared with digital. However, I doubt that even professional photographers will be able to see a difference in resolution or color in a printed output (but maybe the film corn). Even more so, when you include resolution enhancing and noise reducing SW. If time and money don‘t matter, than film has still an edge. All that before considering, that the human eye can‘t resolve images beyond 20 megapixel - if a correct viewing distance for the whole image is considered.

[@ObligedTester]

Great video! I think a place where Fuji is really obviously better, looks to be on the house comparison at about 6:40. To me the roof and facade looks a bit more sharp, if not much more sharp

[@oceanheadted]

Thanks for doing this, I still preferred the look of the Ektar, but that was mostly down to the colour balance. LF when shot at a wide aperture has a very appealing look which I have not seen reproduced (well) on digital yet.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

I’ll do a post on that with my Aero Ektar soon

[@tomsun3159]

For me the most intersting scene is around 7:02, i pick two different areas a) the meshfence in the foreground for me it looks much more defined b) the tree in the background and the grass around in my opinion it has much more details the different green maybe due to the postprocessing It would be interesting how a professional drum scan at different resolutions would show what is the resolution of the negative. Of course it would primaraly lead to much bigger files with at least a neglactable additional information. also would be interesting to check against different Isos of the film 100 vs. 200 vs. 400. For my opinion the Linhof looks better than the Fuji but only slight, you have to take into account much more additional work to do developing, scanning compared to "just taking" a digital picture.

[@lensman5762]

Outright the film is still unsurpassed. It also looks more organic and natural to the eye. God knows what film would have been like today if they had put as much investment and technology into formulating new emulsions as they did for digital since the youngest film today is nearly two decades old. The caveat is that film is expensive and is getting ridiculously more expensive as each day goes by. So for running cost and convenience digital is hard to beat, but it will never satisfy a photographer like film photography would. Thank you for a very detailed comparison.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

You bet!

[@nowisthetime6093]

Would tend to agree but not forgetting Digital itself is still in its infancy compared to Film. (Around 30 years compared to well over 100 for Film.) Give Digital another 30 years and it'll blow everybody away such are the advances in technology. 100mp will probably be seen as we see 1mp today. Dynamic range might be numerous bracketed shots, focus stacked and blended in-camera or everything could just be filmed in 16k video with 200mp screen grabs for photos. Advances in software should not be overlooked either. This tech is still young and is evolving.

[@petegrady9905]

Never say never.

[@lensman5762]

@@nowisthetime6093 Sorry but you are not correct. This digital sensor is actually an analogue device because all it produces is electricity or signal or whatever you like to call it. The sensor technology itself has not made any progress in the last few years, not much any way. What has progressed is chip technology, the processor inside the camera that is and the associated software. I am sure you know what these do, they make up images from the data that the ADC unit supplies to them. AI is also set to play a bigger role as the processors become even more powerful. None of this has anything to do with photography as we know it. It is computer generated imaging, plain and simple. Computational photography does not even need a camera in the classic sense. I guess you just talk to a computer and it just generates an image for you the way you want it. It won't be long.

[@Fujik1966]

@@nowisthetime6093 Unfortunately, tomorrow the problem will be in the manufacture of optics, which in no way correspond to sensors above 100 megapixels. I tried a lot of lenses, produced in 1980-2020, and... for particularly serious filming and reproductions, the lenses from the 1960s remained in my bagage. Lenses from the 1960s performed better. The limit of optics development? Interestingly, my year of birth is 1966.

[@toulcaz31]

It’s a good video to remind that for the absolutists, film can still deliver details and tonality (and you stopped at 4x5) but for the more practical people, digital has definitely reduced the level of compromise for a much easier and cheaper workflow, especially in a professional setting. I still much preferred the film one but that’s definitely more work.

[@thomastuorto9929]

Labor of love!

[@danncorbit3623]

The advantage of film is the very tiny aperture that is possible, so that a very large depth of field is possible. Of course, with a digital camera you can do a focus stack and negate that advantage. I have four by five cameras and a 51MP Canon 5Ds. Even 51MP with Topaz can make huge, clear images. For me, the most important difference is cost, especially since I do not do my own development. But I like to shoot film sometimes just for the enjoyment of it.

[@kevinbrowne3089]

Totally agree on DOF. I'm not terribly interested in focus stacking and sitting at a computer for hours. :)

[@robdixon5016]

I prefer the film image but I will say I am biased. I still love film despite having a few digital bodies. Its great to be able to shoot both. I have a few Velvia 50 rolls for the fall colors here coming soon. My digital had a good workout lately ad Im wanting to shoot some film again. Great video too!!

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Thank you! Fall is almost here in Southern VT

[@bciecko1]

Both look so great. I really have to lean to the Fuji though. This comes down to something about the files from that camera that gives a really 3 dimensional quality to them. The Room is amazing but it looks like a super clean and high quality photograph. The Fuji file, it looks like I'm there. It feels less flat. I'm not sure what it is but something about it makes the scene look like it's right there in front of me. For that reason I prefer the Fuji.

[@ConanTroutman0]

Digital certainly has 4x5 beat in most measures but will never win out in terms of the recreational experience. Looking at these images it's hard to come up with a practical reason to shoot film over the Fuji, but if you're not working photographer you have the blessing of not needing to think that way. I shoot mostly concerts and high ISO performance and dynamic range have improved so much it would be the obvious choice, but I just have no desire to download photos from an SD card at the end of the night. If you're not getting paid, do what's fun!

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

I agree - film makes me happy!

[@sundarAKintelart]

A much needed serious comparison. Informative. Any possibility of a review using Linhof and lens on GFX 100?? Just curious..

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Not really- I don’t own and can afford the camera- would be fun to do but $$$ won’t allow

[@ericspeltier]

I agree, SUPER close race. Certainly the time and extra equipment of Film is a major detractor at this point.

[@g-r-a-e-m-e-]

That was a really interesting comparison. I agree, the Fuji is pretty much at the same level as the 5x4, and that is an amazing thing. I would like to see black and white images taken with it. But the setting up of a 5x4 view camera and all the preparations needed results in a "considered" image. You invest more effort and time into making a picture that way, and that process impacts on the result and also the value you put on it. So for me, I still prefer 5x4. But on a practical point, I have several 5x4 cameras, and probably can't afford a Fuji, or can't justify the cost, when I already have an alternative. Final point - huge pixel counts don't always make a big difference, but setting a digital camera against 5x4 makes me think again! (10x8 is another thing!)

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Hard part about 8x10 is getting a true scan of the film - when done properly on say a drum scanner with a good operator it is amazing but most other scanner options just don’t due it justice-- the Fuji is $5k-- yes expensive but compared to what it would have cost just a few years ago it is a bargain-- but I do love my film!

[@pjmverbruggen]

They are really close for sure. I love the colors of the Ektar film. I use Ektar also in my 17mm film camera to be able to counter it being half frame a bit. Fuji seems to be better from a sharpness perspective in my opinion. They are close! Guess I’m going with character.. film!

[@renepirolt]

Excellent results with both cameras. It really just depends on what tools you prefer to use. For me, I love shooting LF. Would love to know how you scan and color correct Ektar and negative film. Thanks for the great content!

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

My Imacon 646 has a pretty good color profile and with some basic white balance there and in PS it is usually spot on. Yep.... shoot what fit your style/ needs... film or digital it all good.

[@c.augustin]

The APO makes a huge difference for the 4x5 negative: I did a test of an older 150/5.6 Schneider-Kreuznach Symmar with ADOX CHS 100 II compared to a Hasselblad X2D 100C (same sensor as the Fuji GFX, if I'm not mistaken) - and results were not in favor for the 4x5 negative. Even a Sony A7RIV would've beaten the large format negative (it was comparable to a Sony A7RIII). But the 4x5 has some properties that a digital camera is lacking in two areas: "sensor" size (which sometimes matters, e.g. for pinhole photography) and movements. Yes, there are some specialty lenses and systems (like Cambo is offering) for digital cameras, but the options a good LF camera is offering are still superior. It just depends. I couldn't afford a digital system that would give me what I want, but I could afford a good LF camera and some decent lenses (not top-notch, but good enough and comparatively cheap), so I'm in the LF camp … ;-) (Maybe some day somebody would donate me a GFX or X2D 100 MP camera with lenses to change that, but I doubt it.)

[@jackmcgonigle9156]

What got me out of my 4x5 wet b/w darkroom was learning to make real unsharp masks and burning thru an entire box of print paper and never getting one exactly like I wanted. The unsharp masks looked so good that standard prints were no longer good enough. However, they tripled or quadrupled the time and labor to create. That was about the time Photoshop came around which was more intuitive to me. Now I'm trying to figure out how to get rid of all my darkroom equipment. By the way, the Fuji images seemed quite a bit more detailed on my monitor than the scanned film images.

[@scotty3114]

I think the Fuji is great, but the Ektar still has a better dynamic range. It's also a little warmer, but that might be the difference in western vs eastern eyes. I know Japanese film has always been cooler. Good video!

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Thank you!

[@bigboichoi0073]

Love ur videos! So informative.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Thank you!

[@erichramone7812]

By the way just subscribed. This video was amazing 👏

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Thank you!

[@rustyschackleford5800]

Imagine if you could never move your eyes around, or turn your neck. You'd have to turn your entire body to look at something. That's what a GFX is like vs 4x5. A view camera can do movements, which technically makes it superior.

[@Narsuitus]

Thanks for a very useful video. I have been wondering how images from the Fuji GFX medium format digital cameras compared to my 4x5 inch large format film camera.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Happy to help!

[@leslumieres1237]

Though I always preferred Kodachrome to Ektachrom using Leica, I am amazed at the color rendering of the Fuji camera, which is very similar to the Fujichrome transparencies: coldish greenish as I would call it, just like Ektachrome used to be blueish. But in your test - thank you for doing it - I prefer the 4x5; much more natural. I wonder though how a real 'darkroom print' would look like.

[@costelloandsilke7321]

Great video. The one thing I would say is that anything around F8 is too large an aperture to adequately capture depth of field compared to the aperture used on the Rodenstock. You can go to at least F11 before diffraction starts to become a problem.

[@massimoshi]

I like the film better, but I agree with you. It’s just a bit better. I also think that what ever camera you have, is the best thing you’ve got! Film is great, and so is digital!

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

YES!!

[@faranji]

I still prefer Ektar, and that’s as someone who owns the newer version of that Fuji camera (for paid work). Film delivers as much resolution as you could reasonably need, and greater richness with less fussing around. Sure, I could spend hours massaging RAW files, but why would I want to do that? I like shooting, not sitting in front of computers. One of the best things you can do with a 100MP camera (it’s actually 400MP in multi-shot mode) is to use it for scanning film. I’m in the process of setting up a camera scanning rig with the Fuji to ultimately replace my ageing Flextight. The hardest aspects when it comes to matching or exceeding Flextight results actually turns out to be the lens (the purpose-built Rodenstock lenses inside Flextights are outstanding) and the software conversion (Flexcolor is old as hell but the designers seemed to really understand color science). If you can get those elements right however, camera scanning will give you fantastic results much faster than Flextight or drum scanning.

[@Fujik1966]

No matter how much I tried to scan the films, I was not happy with the results. I came to the conclusion that it is necessary to scan and reshoot films with a lens corresponding to the angle of incidence of the beam on the film. The thickness of the gelatin in all layers is very large, and the light ray falls on each color on a different scale. Therefore, it is necessary to remember at what focal length you shot each frame of roll and sheet film. Not funny at all. (Google Transletter)

[@thedp]

I used a 26MP (XT3) camera with OM 50 macro + OM copy rig to digitize my slides : K64, E100, E200 and a few others. What I can say is at the pixel level I have good shots of sharp grain. I've been done with film a few decades ago despite some folks insisting it had more resolution, etc. The facts don't support that once you do side by side tests like this, or start doing hires scans of film just to look at the grain. Seeing a 645 sensor next to a 4X5 neg almost wasn't fair considering how much more area the film had, but again digital held up to the point of where the differences didn't matter. certainly if you'd done a 6X6 format camera it would of come out pretty short.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

One of the points was that even tho there was more area with the film- if you are stuck with a V750 or V850 type scanner you are never going to get the true resolution of that extra area anyways. Whereas in the BW test I was able to oil mount and scan in two sections at an optical 3200 and it shows just how good LF film can look but again only if you have the proper scanning tools.

[@blazerbarrel2]

Film guy here … but digital is so close to film capture at 100 mg cameras plus all the advantages of digital , l would agree , digital Could be used over film . Better lenses , no film and processing costs , no wasted material , infinite editing . You pay upfront , camera , lens , computer , printer , sd cards , batteries , but for the easy use , i would switch today .

[@bristleconepinus2378]

The film in this demo has better saturation, but for the hassle of chemicals, wait time, chance for mistakes, bulk of equipment I'll take the digital any day. It's immediate and remediable with the feedback available instantly. I have been photographing professionally and for pleasure for the last 60 years since my first FTN from Japan in the mid 60's...had many darkrooms.. I just threw away my entire darkroom, Bessler enlarger, and everything...It's been in my attic for 14 years, nobody wanted it. My Canon digital and I have travelled the world making some pretty nice photographs during that time, and ENJOYING making photographs. Just sayin'.

[@maze400]

Great job on the video. I found the composition of the 4 by 5 shot to be more appealing to my eye. And it was. a little bit warmer. I do love the Fuji camera And feel that it was just as crisp as the 4 by 5. But a little bit on the cool side..

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Yep!

[@n5sdm]

Pure simplicity and process.....digital. hard pressed to tell the difference unless you dig. Film is amazing. Complain about the cost of the fugi and lens and then compare it to the cost of camera and lens and tank and developers (chemicals) scanner, time involved. I love my field camera, I love the history, the zen, the patience, and the thought that goes into each shot. However, try getting that on a plane in your backpack, or at the zoo, ect. I have three cameras over 100 years old, a lens set that was used by George Eastman (owned by Parker Kadey), I absolutely love this stuff. However I carry my digital in my pocket or around my neck. R5mk2, 5dsr, r7 for small distant stuf, and of course my cell phone.

[@OLDMANTEA]

What a sweet camera

[@jacob_90s]

5:20 one thing i want to point out is that you're taking pictures of the side of the barn from noticably different angles. This will change how much light is reflected towards the camera

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Its actually not very different .... we had to move the tripod a bit between the shots to try to keep the framing similar but this would not affect the film as that was metered with my spot meter and the Fuji was spot on using the histogram... close enough

[@dadasese69]

Well, still, here also, film has that magic smooth look. Yes I can edit raw digital to reach that same look of film, but would take a good amount of tweaks to get there.

[@nicolas-arg-o3u]

Thanks for the comparison and the video. I’d like to suggest not using a huge 4x5 camera with a lens on a skinny central column of a tripod. I’m a 4x5 shooter and have always seen that the best technical results come from a strong tripod with no central column, a sturdy low profile head and good technique - weight below, wait until the camera settled after inserting the holder and so on

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Yeah I sold my larger tripod a few years back but this one is plenty strong for this camera- my Ries is getting good use elsewhere

[@jasonphilbrook4332]

Lens choice makes me choose a camera system. Nothing quite like the large format soft focus lenses; the small format soft focus is difficult to use in comparison. The 75mm tessar on my Rolleiflex with the round iris is smooth in all situations and never flares because it's only 3 chunks of coated glass. My Sigma art 20mm is nice for 35mm digital, as is a 300/2.8 for sports or nature.

[@i35photo]

GFX is certainly holding its own! Quality is so close its not really worth arguing it comes down to personal preference and workflow. I have a GFX 50R been shooting it a lot this year with the Acros B&W sim as my starting point and tweaking from there has been excellent. The other thing about scanning 4x5 you have a great scanner those things are hard to come by and you have to use an old ass Mac to run those things... Been there done that its a pain:)

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Yeah... all about personal preference... especially in color.... doing a BW version of this test now.

[@jamesmoore9511]

My foot pump is red. Scanner - Flextight Precision II. Thanks for the comparison. Ps: My fav camera size 4x10 or 5x7

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

I shot a lot of 4x10!!!

[@thealaris]

I always wanted a medium format cam for the look that it provides, and its even more handy to make digital copies of medium format film as the prises on scaning are ridiculous nowdays, but there is so much more that can be done to film that cant be done to digitally, like you dont need battery for film camera to work, and its probably the main advantage of it, cause i want just to chill sometimes and make couple of realy good shots, so medium format film ia a way to go here

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

I always prefer to work on a film scan over a digital file -

[@geofftonks8960]

Good fun. Enjoyed that.

[@SavedbybGrace]

Would be interesting to see a comparison with the Blad CFV100C. That's what I'm using and it's the best image quality and detail I've ever seen. And... the Hasselblad colour science is a revelation!!!

[@friendofarca6550]

no suprise, when I got my 1ds years ago I did a comparison with a 6x8 velvia drum scan shot with a p2 and a sinar roll film holder which gave superior results regarding sharpness compared to sheet film. the results, the canon 11mpx file was of course smaller than the 300dpi film scan but the difference in detail was rather small. pixel shift would have added also a little bit more resolution to the fuji file making the advantage of digital even more clear.

[@noudsmeets]

Maybe the Fuji matches resolution but for me the 4x 5 is an absolute winner. The image is much more pleasing for the eye. lLok at 4.00 at the wooden wall or at 6.24 at the grass, how the shadows slowly fade away in the green and the light on the tree.

[@danivar86]

The biggest difference to me here is the three-dimensionality or depth in the film image. It's as if you can walk into the image on the right at 4:40, while the Fuji feels flatter in rendering. I've noticed similar difference when comparing full frame cameras with the same picture taken on compact cameras with smaller sensors. I would guess the larger "sensor" of the 4x5 and subsequent focal length difference plays a part here, giving a different perspective compression.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Absolutely- bigger film or bigger sensor has a greater sense of dimensional qualities-

[@thomastuorto9929]

And the new Hass;eblad would probably be even better, if lenses are available! Interesting comparison.

[@marcinp.8108]

Some years ago my 6x9 slide, taken with 4x5" camera, was scanned on a drum "monster" from Fuji to cover A3@300ppi. But small piece of film was scanned with full resolution power of the scanner - 8000dpi. Scanned image containad some embroidered picture - and the amout of details was shocking. I would like to see comparison of such drum-scaned film with this camera... Imacon is not bad at all, but it can't be compared to a drum scanners IMO. BTW, I've had an experience, where Nikon D200 with cheap 18-70 lens was better than negative from Mamiya 645 with shift lens, scanned on Nikon 4000...

[@confrontingphotography4815]

I don’t know that I have a preference, both images look good and could handle heavy editing. I would say that the roof in the digital shot looked better to my eye than the film shot, but the depth of field in the film shot was nicer than the digital. Ultimately I think the real test would be in printing such images. Does one have more dimensionality than the other? If you printed fairly large like 50+ inches across, what would we see? Fun video.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

They both would be very good-- at that scale the digital would have a big harder edge -- I’ve made a lot of work that size and much much larger 😄

[@terrywbreedlove]

I just shot an outdoor event. At a Native American celebration. Shooting 35mm color and black and white film. Others shooting on digital of course. They with two cameras each with zooms. Me with my Nikon f3 and Pentax Spotmatic. 28mm and 35mm primes. I am sorry but the film just looks amazing and not only to my eye. It looks richer and one commentator said it has that old school magic.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

I agree... I am a film shooter 100% for my artworks but it is intresting to see how far digital has come... its really the larger sensor and 100MP combo that seems to make this solution look good.

[@terrywbreedlove]

@@FIGITALREVOLUTION I have four sheets of 4x5 E6 shot.Here at home in the HOH Rainforest. I will finished the box of 10 sheets soon and then send them off. That’s the other thing the wait for the film is like being a kid at Christmas. I mostly shoot black and white and develop my own though.

[@vincentkeith5259]

I started scanning my 4x5 Provia on an Imacon 646 - then I bought a Phase1 P45+ after about a year, I gave up on film all together. Now I just use a Fujifilm X-2H (thinking about adding an X-T5) Need to sell the scanner and P45+ back since I don't use them any more (along with a lot of 4x5 gear).

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Imacon scanners in good shape are selling for a lot of $$$ these days

[@vincentkeith5259]

@@FIGITALREVOLUTION Good to hear. Should I be trying eBay or someplace like KEH?

[@CalumetVideo]

Honestly, the digital wins for quality for color but if tilts and swings are needed LF wins for me. A great unbiased comparison. I am primarily a film shooter and really love film. I think digital medium format quality is now neck and neck with medium and large format film. I use large format 4x5 black and white and now shoot 6x9 medium format color in my LF camera since the color 4x5 film is so expensive.

[@marcomarcon5802]

Film is for people interested in process and craftsmanship as well as the final result. But you need the money for it

[@filmstudiojapanDOTcom]

Never owned a large format camera, but own a GFX 100s which I have shot with for 2 years now. I prefer the Extar images. The reason is fairly straight forward, and is because I can see the fine line where the detail of the 100s becomes blocky (digital) but the film remains intact though the grain. It's just a more pleasing look to me, even if I actually feel the 100s was a bit more punchy. Of course I am talking in the very zoomed in high resolution crops, but I think globally it ads to the feeling of atmosphere where the air itself seems visible. Of course this goes unnoticed by almost anyone but the editor, but I am a purely visual person and though the 100s is so close to film and it's why I chose it, it's just that little bit behind what your Extar is achieving. Am I going to switch to film for the majority of my landscape works? Not anytime soon. I walk and take public transport with whatever I can fit and carry in a backpack, and have to contend with injuries already.. so the gfx just works, and is as you said a great camera. I've also gotten pretty good at getting the atmosphere into photos using a combination of capture one and darktable (darktable is king). Nice str8 forward video, I appreciate it as it was a nice way to wake up in the land of the rising son. Liked, and Subscribed. Please feel free to check out my channel. It's going to be going more in the direction of mostly landscape sessions from Japan.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Thank you!

[@briancreekphotography]

Thanks, this was very well done! I'm following your channel to see what else you have to say. I'm done with working in the darkroom, but I really miss using my 4x5 and favorite lenses for landscape photography. I've been wondering how much the differences noticed in your samples are due to the glass. I've seen a FotodioX Multi-Position Stitching Adapter for sticking a digital camera on the back of a view camera, and recording images on that rather than film and stitching them together for a larger format effect. I've not found much in the way of critical reviews on this process (none, actually). Have you talked with anyone who has really experimented with this stuff? Thanks again! Brian

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

I have friends who have and of course a lot gets into subject matter as stitching only works well if nothing moves.