Medium Format: Digital vs Film Showdown

[@dimitripapadimitriou2915]

Try shooting a Mamiya 7II 6x7 camera the lenses are beyond belief and it will give the Fuji a run for its money!

[@DavidBrookover]

Matt nice video. Couple of thoughts...... I`ve also noticed that the GFX cameras tend to have a cooler magenta caste to them which I believe is due to the native GF lenses. I`ve tested them against my Zeiss lenses with adapters and it's instantaneously noticeable. I have owned both of those lenses and as far as clinical sharpness the GF 120mm is in another league. The Pentax 645 lenses had much better and warmer multi coating than the older 6x7 lenses so you will likely find them significantly warmer on your next test. Of course you will have to use the same film to notice it. Nice seeing the old neighborhood again. If you're able, try to get some portraits of people and then compare the two. I think you will admire the Pentax results even more. Ryane says hello!

[@ChuckAbles]

Excellent episode! Loved your walkabout in Flagstaff. And, of course, the comparison between digital vs film medium format cameras. Fujifilm is top notch beyond a shadow of doubt, in terms of digital. At one time, I was a Fujifilm shooter until I crossed the line and joined...... the Leica family with digital. Having said that, I am keeping my eyes out for the possibility of the Fujifilm X-Pro 4. But I digress. I had fun watching your video and your honest critiquing of the difference between digital and film. Job well done. So, if you excuse me, I have a roll of film to develop that I used in a Pentax IQZoom 160 I purchased at Goodwill in Prescott Valley. Keep up the good work.

[@michaellong9526]

I use the GFX 50 S ll ( same sensor but better autofocus and grip,) the Mitokan 65 mm f1.4 ,manual focus with magnification to nail focus and it works really well, way cheaper than the $5000 kit, CREAMY bokeh nice colours, lens is $5-600 new crazy good kit. Just need a static subject with such narrow dof and manual focus. Fuji has a very good setup for MF , put focus patch wherever you want it ,punch in to magnify and push the shutter, I have no issues with missed focus on this lens, I believe that’s a f 1.0 50mm equivalence. You should try it out on your 50 r. Lens weighs a ton so the lack of a solid grip on the r might make it very front heavy.

[@HiddenLight]

That is my kind of jam. F/1.4 would be insanely fun! I’ll look into that. Thank you!

[@FirePhoenixAudio]

Fuji GFX with the Mitakon 65 is the same look as the Pentax 67 with the 105mm f2.4.

[@dan.allen.digital]

You are looking at this all wrong. You buy the GFX to scan your 645 negatives. Problem solved😊

[@ironmonkey1512]

This goes with what I've seen, that resolution is about on parity for medium format.

[@irenedp4947]

you are right about the fuji, but there are digital medium format cameras with 6x4.5 sensors

[@HiddenLight]

Full size? Which ones? I would love to try one! Maybe Phase One?

[@irenedp4947]

@@HiddenLight yes, Phase has full size sensors

[@tundrusphoto4312]

It might be helpful to Fuji files through Capture One and see if there is a difference. Just curious.

[@HiddenLight]

I don’t have the ol Capture One, but maybe I can stick the raw files somewhere for people to download… will see about that

[@dtroix]

What are your thoughts on monochrome camera

[@janradtke8318]

When you compare two images, they should be of the same magnification, so objects are the same size. A 100% resolution comparison is meaningless.

[@whateverrandomnumber]

Agreed. A more fair comparison would be a medium format camera that accepts both film and digital backs, like a Hasselblad (either V or H system), a Mamiya 645, or any other similar. And digital 135 (35mm) with similar FOVs and DOFs.

[@nanoulandia]

There's one option you have not considered.... the Fuji GFX50R with Pentax 645 lenses. I just ordered my first Pentax 645A lens to try it out. For me the advantage is not only price but weight. Those Fuji GF lenses are so, so heavy. I am tempted to buy a Pentax 645N as well, but looking at this comparison makes me think it might not be worth it.

[@hankroarkphoto]

Don’t I need an A7R4 (or 5…I loose track) plus a lens plus a copy stand plus a negative holder plus negative lab pro license plus a backlight for the negatives to get the tack sharpness from the 645 negatives? Or do you scan in your shop at that resolution?

[@HiddenLight]

That’s how we scan everyone’s film here. I kinda figure scan it once real big and never have to scan it again!

[@hankroarkphoto]

@@HiddenLight That’s awesome.

[@gavinjenkins899]

Actually it only costs me ($5.80 Kentmere 400 + $1 developing chemicals per roll)/16 = $0.43 when I click the shutter

[@bigshooter461]

When comparing images you should label on screen which is which

[@jasonzayas5487]

645 is just a slightly bigger 35mm negative. 6x7 is where its at.

[@mrca2004]

35 mm 8 square cm, 645, 27, it's TRIPLE the size of 35 mm. 67 is 42, FIVE times 35 mm. But resolution brought me to 67 10 years ago when I was shooting a 12 mp digital. Now I shoot a 46 mp nikon that meets or slightly exceeds 67 resolution. Resolution isn't the only important characteristic of mf film... just like it isn't the most important in lenses. Speaking of which, my 67 lenses are 5 elements compared to 22 in say a 70-200 zoom. Micro/intertonal contrast gives a 3D rendering, gorgeous tones. Think a 16 box of crayons vs 64. What is b&w but tones. A RB 67 with couple backs and lenses less than a grand. My digital with a couple lenses, over 5 grand. Can buy lots of film with 4 grand and by the time you hit it, it's time to replace your obsolete digital camera. The difference in look of a 67 negative. Watch the movie Oppenheimer shot on a comparable sized film stock, then watch Fat man and little boy shot on 35 mm film.

[@lorimoscova]

Scanning film is extralimiting. If you print the GFX file inkjet and the Portra in darkroom... you'll notice an extreme difference!

[@Thorpal]

I don't want to be the jerk saying "medium format magic really starts at 6x6 and upwards" but you have to admit 645 is only main interest is convience when you want a bigger negative than 35mm and don't want the trouble, the cumbersomeness and the lesser frame counts the other medium formats have... Doesn't mean you can't make great photographes with it :)

[@HiddenLight]

I’m totally with you! 6x6 and up is where it really starts to shine. 🤘

[@tonyfoulkes9289]

Would be interesting to do Pentax 645n against Pentax 645z. You can then use same lense on both. This was interesting and informative. Maungaturoto New Zealand.

[@marcogea1974]

I did just that last year. 645z vs 645N with Ektar 100, scanned on a $25k Imacon Flextight. They were close. The 645z had a tiny more detail and zero grain. The film still held its own.

[@ulyssesnathanialowen3831]

yer film kicked ass .

[@joshmcdzz6925]

unfortunately, your conclusions and analysis are not right.. When you digitize a film negative, the result is a function of what was used to digitize the negative. So in essence, this comparison is GFX 50 vs Sony A7R4.. Plus, if you really want to name it a comparison, it is going to be portra 400 120 6x4.5 film vs GFX 50 and not Pentax vs GFX.. In film, the camera plays very little significance to the image ( yes I know you will say lens but its impact is very indiscernible ). DIgitizing film has alot of variables to it which compromises any conclusion drawn. if you scan the negative with a flatbed and use a different software, you are goin to get a different result from a dslr using another software or from a drum scanner or frontier/nikon coolscan/noritas etc... if you really want to compare film to digital, here is what you should do. develop the negative, elarge and print it.. for the digital, take the jpeg and print it ( no edit on any -film or digital ) , then to project it for your fans on youtube to see, scan them with the same scanner ( document scanner )...

[@RegrinderAlert]

You make no sense. Why wouldn’t you make basic adjustments to the digital file before printing? Technical correct digital images are shot in a way that requires underexposing a lot of times. I get why you are proposing to use JPEGs but those are literally also just (automatically) processed RAWs - nothing unedited there.

[@What_Other_Hobbies]

That's a very expensive light meter. JK. would be interesting to see 645Z with the same Pentax FA lens as on 645N, then it's only comparing film and sensor since the lens is no longer a variable.

[@sprout995]

You ought to buy a Pentax 645Z. Same sensor as the fujifilm. Okay with the same beautiful Pentax pentaprism. Then you can switch between a 645N and a 645Z with the same lenses minus a little crop factor. 😂

[@eyesonly4451]

"Soulless" is the perfect analog for digital photography.

[@HiddenLight]

;)

[@adamkencki]

You have to show images at the same magnification otherwise it's pointless. Also comparing colours and contrasts on raw files is completely meaningless

[@HiddenLight]

Such a positive, helpful comment! Thank goodness for your insight!

[@adamkencki]

@@HiddenLight it´s called criticism. you made the video :)

[@jaunman71]

Lol Sensor on a film camera….Its called film .

[@HiddenLight]

You might be surprised how many people don’t know that. At least once a year, I hear someone asking for a “sensor cleaning” on their film camera!

[@adamkencki]

The reason looking through pentax looks better could be, but maybe not, that you are not looking on a screen...

[@adamkencki]

Shooting with sunglasses on

[@HiddenLight]

Commenting with negative attitude on.

[@adamkencki]

@@HiddenLight I get it, you want to look cool and all.