Film vs Digital - Mamiya 6x7 vs Nikon FF - Real World Shootout

[@dadasesa4108]

Sorry, a descent lab scanner is required for this test to be valid.

[@RobBob555]

you are correct

[@lawsonpix]

Big thanks to Tim Parkin from Professional Drum Scanning who did just that. A new comparison photo is here: www.flickr.com/photos/lawsonpix/46508794365/

[@MyJuancho2010]

the quality of the lens is something super important...and it must be taken into account...high quality lenses are excessively expensive...the test must be done with better quality film equipment...HASSELBLAD'S cameras were never better in the body compared to a mamiya... the big difference was in the quality of the lenses... now modern technology has made all this quality lower in price, and more accessible to our hands.

[@vangstr]

Thanks for the vid but honestly, you need to try drum scanning to see how much better film can outperform digital.

[@mileschun143]

In defense of film, Noritsu scans and proper development would have vastly increased sharpness. Digitizing with a DSLR isn't going to be able to pull out as much as a dedicated scanner. TMAX 100 is a T-Grain film, so it requires very precise exposure, temperatures and timings to be developed correctly. I am a film shooter myself (and use an RB67 Pro-S as well!), and I am able to routinely pull 50 Megapixels out of my images, even on my low-tier Epson V600 flatbed scanner. I do also see light leaks... you should get that checked out. Wonderful comparison.

[@lawsonpix]

Do you have any sample images? I'd love to see them.

[@mileschun143]

Sure. How would I get them to you? @@lawsonpix

[@lawsonpix]

Do you have a Flickr account?

[@mileschun143]

No sorry @@lawsonpix

[@hijodmaite]

Photographer Bill Lawson check out my film portrait stuff with Mamiya 645 in my Flickr. User name “HijoDmaite” all scanned professionally with Noritsu Scanner

[@BarwickGreen]

From the fishing pier shot it looks as if the film coped better with the dynamic range, it would be interesting to test this aspect too.

[@mohammadvarzideh780]

Great comparison . It's nonesenc to vast time for better digitizing negatives . I shoot Film just for fun and it's enjoyable. It Can't be compare with digital resolution .

[@albertobuzzola4204]

enjoyed it. However if you properly scan the film you would surely get better results. In the end of the day...yes they are two different things. I work with digital to pay my bills and I enjoy films to make pictures that please me.

[@lawsonpix]

Big thanks to Tim Parkin from Professional Drum Scanning in Ballachulish, ARGYLL. SCOTLAND. A new comparison photo is here: www.flickr.com/photos/lawsonpix/46508794365/ Tim's web site: www.drumscanning.co.uk/

[@Raychristofer]

Highly appreciate you taking the time to do this comparison my man. It's also cool to be reminded that those vintage digital cameras do take beautiful images even with lower megapixel counts. I have a Panasonic gh1 and the images coming off of that sensor honestly look more natural and analog compared to the colors of my modern G7

[@jupitereye4322]

I have to say, looking at that film portrait it looks like a dream. I've always preferred film over digital. The only issue is the control of the image in development, and for a professional that is immeasurably valuable. This is probably the reason why I gravitate towards vintage lenses, I want that organic look but on a digital platform.

[@lawsonpix]

Yes, vintage lenses are a great idea

[@guyjordan8201]

As a real world shootout this was well done. Extremely well shot, processed, and reproduced film would look better than this BUT almost no one has that skill. Modern digital is great and can compete unless a very specific process and outcome is required; great images do not require film.

[@13squier]

I'd be interested to compare a 20x24 photo enlargement from the negative and a laser print that size from digital.

[@lawsonpix]

Each process is unique. So each process has its strengths and weaknesses.

[@LeonChart]

Thanks for the very useful video! What about the compression of the background compared to the model? Is there a difference between the larger zoom 180mm lens and the 85mm one? Thanks again.

[@lawsonpix]

Hi, no compression because of the different film plane sizes.

[@smokybear7511]

You need to compare prints, digital vs silver gelatin prints.

[@joeyoliver579]

I shoot a Nikon D4s for work, but I shoot my Nikon F3 for practice, only with Ilford HP5 B&W film. There's a richness in film that digital cannot seem to duplicate, even when I try to add grain during post. B&W in digital seems flat to me. In the photo @2:51 there are details and depth around here earrings and hair that the 750 couldn't handle, and just blew them out. But that foto example is also 2 stops different... Its very rare that I will convert a digital photo to B&W. I will take a B&W film photo over a digital shot any day. I believe shooting film in B&W helps me to better see the light (with my eyes not a meter) and helps me compose the shot better... because I have to think through what Im about to do. Just my 2 cents worth.

[@lawsonpix]

Film is great. I love it too. Thanks for commenting.

[@robvanvalkenburg522]

The tonality of the film camera looks better to me...

[@MrSouzy]

I am shooting 35mm film, but I also have a pretty good Pentax DSLR too. In the vid you said digital is more accurate which is certainly true when compared with 35mm film. Even though I have a choice what camera to take out with me I almost always take out the film camera. I think the reason for me is that it isn't about the pixel peeping but more about the overall experience. From taking the photos to developing themselves afterwards myself. To cut is short film is simply more fun for me. I don't need the instant gratification and that would even detract from the fun. Also Film looks generally different which induces a different feeling when viewing the images. I can't quite put my finger on it though. On top of all that shooting film is also pretty anti technology..it makes a statement when out and about which I find really good..

[@lawsonpix]

I consider film more therapeutic.

[@jorgealbertorojasluzardo12]

Para que la prueba pueda compararse, debía escanear la película en un escáner de transparentes, ese archivo digital conseguido de esa forma sí se puede comparar con el Raw de cámara digital FF!!!

[@jacobsammut829]

Also, Tmax with D-76??? You just lost half the quality of the film. T-max has it's own special dev and fix because it has a unique emulsion.

[@bobsouthall5224]

I suspect the digital images were jpg's which look brighter and sharper to the JPG processing... I have done a similar procedure with the film images wet-processed and with great care, the film won!!! But... for the problem of dust and other rubbish contaminating the film/paper surfaces, it was a difficult and somewhat frustrating process... so I would consider with modern digital equipment, digital wins on consistency and practicality... Thanks for the post, very interesting...

[@fredricknietzsche7316]

4M x 6 does not equal 24M. running the film through your digital work flow just gives you the weaknesses of both workflows togther.

[@gltzddonut]

What are you trying to achieve? Everybody knows medium format film is not as high in resolution, but looks better due to the tonality changes. If everyone could afford it and it was as easy as digital, I think everyone would have chosen to shoot on film.

[@TXLorenzo]

In five years the D750 will be the same price as the RB67.

[@lawsonpix]

Yeah maybe

[@RobBob555]

@ 4:33 especially, the film wins out to me, blacks more darker, lights lighter, over all contrast is better... i shoot both.. but i HAVE to say, shooting film is wasaaaay more fun.. and, i think it makes me a better photographer, .. i take more time to compose the shots, get the balance right, metering, subject matter etc etc.. and the anticipation of seeing how your negative comers out cannot be beaten.. digital is okay.. but wheres the fun in rattling off 50 shots and choosing the best one ?

[@iminonlyifithaspics5451]

Except for a nice way to spend your time, giving that you enjoyed doing it, i think the comparison is quite useless :)

[@mikeschaid959]

I appreciate this, but did you edit the digital images?. Looks like the girl's face is smoothed in the last portrait

[@lawsonpix]

I never release an unedited image.

[@mikeschaid959]

I don't disagree with that philosophy, is the film photo unedited? I'm just saying they should be treated the same

[@lekaakela]

Very interesting. But it's not digital/film comparison. It is comparison of two lenses.

[@jameslane3846]

Sorry but I have the RB67 Pro S and the 180mm lens too and it vastly outperforms my 24MP digital camera for resolution and sharpness (btw I scan my film too with my digital camera). You must be missing focus, developing badly or scanning badly.

[@612morrison]

I would agree the film seemed to soft probably slightly out of focus.

[@MikeKleinsteuber]

Thanks for this. I've had a look at the flickr scans and whilst I appreciate resolution isn't the whole argument between digital and film (dynamic range being important too), I do feel with the post production tools and film emulation software available, if you want the film look it's fairly easy to get using digital. Whilst I started photography in the film only age and do romantically hanker after a film look, the reality is it's over and I should accept that once and for all. I really can see no argument for making things difficult for yourself both physically and financially by using film unless you're venturing into the 8x10 arena. Obviously if you're a masochist or just like the physical process film requires then fine but if you're just after the look there really is no point, however romantically inclined you are.

[@califmike2003]

Ok so if your looking for just flat out sharpness and detail the digital wins, but it looks plastic, has a unreal look vs film, the film has a glow a magic about it in my opinion. Remember that photos are not just about sharpness or pixel peeping, its about mood, tones, magic.

[@lawsonpix]

I agree!

[@jpm74]

Nope. You need to compare 11x15 darkroom gelatin silver print for the Tmax vs inkjet for the digital.

[@kendesantis7319]

Looks like you might have some light leaks...

[@lawsonpix]

Yup, sure do

[@manphoto1972]

Pentax 67 with 2,4 lens look more challenging for rendition difference.

[@cmarsh77504]

digital ISO is typically higher than film, but maybe close enough. it would be hard to match the ISO perfectly. also how was the film kept when you brought it? A lot of the MF film I buy locally are kept in the frig. This help the film from degrading as fast since a lot of places are selling film that are expired or near expired. It would be hard to get a true comparison. Also the lens need to be the same. I would get a mount for the Nikon and mount the Mamyia lens to it and swap it back and forth. one moment you might be shooting the "sweet" spot on one lens and then "sweet spot on the other lens.

[@Jonny51982]

Meh ... the part of the discussion that people don't get into much is that the way the images are recorded inherently produce different results. Like, digital appears sharper/higher res due to increased contrast in the technology. There's a bunch of technical stuff that goes into the image appearance that gets really complicated, far more complicated than is practical for the average person. I bother with some of it and tune out the rest. You also have to take into account the different lens vintages. Modern lenses have more advanced engineering and materials as well as tighter manufacturing tolerances, so contemporary lenses are better. I've shot my Nikon D810 through a relatively modern, though relatively inexpensive, 210mm lens on my 4x5 and it was considerably softer than my Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8. So, how much of the test is affected by the lens? My overall point is that there are myriad factors involved and that, if you understand what's really going on, it's less about which is better and more about which one you like. I like both, so I shoot both. They both have a place. There are ways that both of them are better/worse than the other. If you don't know the differences, shoot whatever. If you know the differences, you shoot what you need or want for whatever it is you're doing.

[@michaelharmon721]

Not a accurate test. Scan the film with a neg scanner I believe you will see that film is much better than digital.

[@bendelandesful]

Your mamyia lens is obviously not sharp enough (or your camera film plane focus in correct) , but the nikon is sharp , so you're not making the right comparison here. I have determined that my 58mm wide omegon on a 6*9 film format can produce the equivalent of 300 megapixels. Bleedingly sharp. On a reversal film I can see details that are 10mm high shot from 125 meters away. There's NO digital camera in the world that can achieve this.

[@lawsonpix]

Impressive

[@finalcut813]

Digital is only digital.

[@massimopiccinini7311]

I prefer the movie, it's magical.

[@rogersmith2129]

I had an RB67 and take pictures with a low mega pixel camera. Fast forward to 2050 and what will the viewing be like? Best guess it will be a digital viewing, so film will be transferred to digital anyway. All film will have turned bad, ie my great aunt’s slides of her multiple world tours, she was in the Sa Francisco earth quake 1906. The few pictures I have from my grand fathers glass plates are ok but I can’t email them to my son without scanning them to so so quality. Taking a roll of 20 good shots is Art, while shooting 200+ digital to get to Art, may not be. The best pictures I have seen by an amateur, was Mary with her 1979 Minolta and not me with my RB67.

[@mrca2004]

Sharp, sharp sharp. That's all we have heard for 20 years from the pixel peepers. And digital lenses have been changed to accomplish that but at the expense of character. I shoot film for the look of it. If I want sterile sharp images, digital. Sure, if shooting 35mm I'll use a Tmax 100 or 400. But I love 3200 ilford in 645 or 67 for the gorgeous, grain. This is testing digital on it's strength only. It can't replicate REAL grain and the guys on Fstoppers found you can get close in post but no cigar trying to emulate the incredible colors and skin tones of Portra 400. That's plenty sharp and with new technology like topaz gigapixel ai that upscales images, I can get crazy sharp out of a lower res image. But, for me sharpness is down the list of importance behind grain, color rendition, lens character. 3D rendering. If you are shooting digital, your images look like everyone else's. Blah, blah, blah. I just upsized a 35 mm Portra 400 portrait taken with a nikon 135 2.0 dc to 16x20 and printed it on matt paper. Gorgeous. Not just another shiny super sharp image like millions of others. I have the RB but the 645 pro tl produces amazing images that I can print in the 20" range. And the grain of 3200 film in that size, goldilocks. I'm sure you have found the RB is a bear to take outside and hand hold mine lives on a rolling stand in studio, the 645 can go from full dress with eye lever finder and power winder to wlf and plastic hand crank a tiny little box you can carry all day. I put the full dress kit on a black rapid strap and even with the 150 mm leaf shutter lens, I can carry that all day.

[@lawsonpix]

All very good points! Thanks

[@snapbackhijab9801]

4:17 was far from a tie... at least in my opinion

[@klemenvidic9352]

I see a lot of tonality in film. Way more, than on digital. Just look on the face of the girl on the first pic.

[@vasyapupken]

looks like you are try really hard to proof that digital is superior )) with all that "DSLR scan" (handheld i suppose) and complete misfocus on film shots.

[@gayusschwulius8490]

Your scanning method is probably why this doesn't look as good, using a proper drum scanner, 6x6 MF film will absolutely blow a 24 MP DSLR out of the water.

[@bobbokil3147]

Interesting video Bill. I will stick with my D750 and all of the "artistic" things I can do with it and Photoshop. However, "to each his own".

[@lawsonpix]

Yes, there's plenty of artistic stuff you can do in Photoshop. As I mentioned, film is just another tool in your camera bag.

[@brazhnikov]

why bw?!

[@MegaSumo67]

you dint compare anything...you buy cameras and lenses for a spific reason..180 vs 85..not the same f4.5 vs f1.8 really...look at real world. 180 f4.5 vs say a 70-200 at f4.5...then show people what you really see..have film scanned and edited. the jpeg you pulled out of the digital was edited, so that was like comparing edited to a raw image. as close as they really come to each other are they are both cameras and you shooting for spific results