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.
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.
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...😀
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.
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!
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.
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. 😊
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-
@@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.
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 $$
@@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
@@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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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. 😊
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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!
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.
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 :)
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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 UA-cam 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.
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.
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.
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 )
I may be very off here, but it appears that the first comparison pictures side-byside you describe - Fuji on the left, 4x5 on the right - are juxtapositioned as you describe being able to read the white license plate and that the wood colors are warmer; that appears to be the one on the left, whereas the one on the right has less wood contrast and is more washed in color and the grays are more lighter than the one on the left and the roofing on the left has more contrast and detail than the one on the right. Also, the grass and most other colors seem more bright and fuller than the one on the right that's supposed to be the 4x5 film. Please correct me in this with further details if I'm wrong so I don't make the same mistake in comparison of future photos. Great work in both regardless. And thank you for these videos!...
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.
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)
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.
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
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
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.
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!
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.
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.)
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.
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!
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!
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 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!
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.
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.
Thank you for doing this. My two cents worth -- is that I'd have to see the actual images on a calibrated workstation to really know what's what. The Fuji looked substantially green to my eye -- but is that UA-cam? Or my screen? Etc. It would help to include a Macbeth color checker in frame for this kind of thing. The big thing that I notice with film vs digital is the influence of grain pattern -- which varies considerably with density -- and the halation layer; blown out film is quite different to blown out digital. . . . but as a practical man and a less than meticulous photographer -- the issue is that when one shoots film, all sorts of things can go wrong. Are you developing with fresh chemistry?, and so on. Every little thing counts.
Yeah it’s always difficult to convey the subtle qualities on UA-cam- 4K playback helps- I make everything on my calibrated system but most people just view on a phone.
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. 😎
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just a thought when discussing the detail extracted later in the video - is it perhaps that the lenses for the Large Format (and arguably the larger medium formats) just aren't optically good enough to resolve more detail rather than that being a limitation of the film. What would be interesting is if there was a same lens for lens comparison that could be done (crop factor taken into account, or use speed booster etc etc) - as I think the glass designed for these 4x5 and 8x10 film cameras was never designed to take 100MP image scans. But with the correct optics, in theory you'd be over a Gigapixel in detail if my math is correct? (if you assume the max reasonable res of Ektar 100 for example is around 20MP on 35mm area but higher on slide film again at loss of dynamic range, but that could sometimes be combated with grad filters)
On a proper drum scanner the film can resolve an amazing amount of detail but that is getting hard to find and $$$. A 3200 scan in sections on an Imacon would be close to 1GB as a RGB 16Bit file. But again how much resolution you needs is based on print size as there are definitely limitations in printing resolution.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Which profile did you start with on the Fuji? Adobe Neutral and Standard will hold the highlights better. Also, add a tiny bit of grain to the GFX files (especially the BW ones in your other video) and you will see that the result is much closer. Furthermore, did you set the Imacon to sharpness -120 for the Ektar and the BW scan? It seems it's scanning a lot of over sharpened grain which makes it looks a bit oversharpened, especially on the BW scan in the other video. I have the same issue on my Imacon X1, need to dial in -120 for a good scan
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Thanks for your in depth test. You lost me when you referenced depth of field for the Kodak ektar exposure at f32 (you could have adjusted the camera standards and achieved full depth of field) and then shot the ektar at the same exposure as the Fuji. Stopping down as far as f32 reduces micro contrast and reduces image fidelity via lines of confusion - I might also have missed any reference to the lens or lenses used. The comparison is very useful but if the optics are different - your really can’t attribute quality advantage to either sensor or film. But again thanks for your detailed work.
Using the standards would have been great but would have given an advantage to the film- lenses were both the best of the best and matched the view as best as possible-
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.
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.
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
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.
Are there ways to make the test more precise? Probably, but I think part of the comparison is testing workflow. A reasonable 4x5 workflow, and somewhat realistic shooting conditions. As a result, it feels like there’s more to film, a bit more life to the image and probably a tad more potential if doing everything possible to maximize it. But the results here are close enough that if convenience is a factor, digital isn’t far off. If you’re working on someone else’s schedule, GFX has a lot to offer. All optics are tradeoffs, and something like the Fuji gains a lot of time and a much easier workflow without trading off as much to film as many cameras would have five to ten years ago. The reverse side of that, however, is that if convenience isn’t a factor, and it’s all your own time, Film still has a lot going for it. Large format in particular, considering everything you can do with the camera. But heck… I’m someone who enjoys shooting half frame 135, despite the fact that with a workflow I can manage, I’ll get “better results” on APS-C digital than full-frame 135.
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.
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 UA-cam 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.
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...
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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
The greens in the film looked more natural, in the digital the greens looked like they were goosed up or there was some strange HDR effect automatically applied.
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.
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).
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.
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.
I was curious about the aperture difference. The background certainly wasn’t sharp. So I guess I would attribute that to the aperture. F/8.5 and f/35 is a huge difference. But great comparison. Unless one is making absolutely huge prints I would probably prefer digital for its convenience (the background detail wouldn’t matter). Thanks for the video.
Actually when you consider the sensor size it is not a big difference- generally for a sensor of this size you would need to stop down at least two stops to get an equivalent DOF -- so F8.5 on the Fuji would be at least F16.5 / 22 but my experience has shown that on that lens 16-32 is fantastic.
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.
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!!!
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!!
This is more a review between Fuji (sensor and lens) and your scanner. Try scanning the 4x5 with your fuji... Joking aside, drum scan it. Also, it's night and day that the Ektar shot in this review is superior in dynamic range. Imacons struggle at the resolutions you tested, which isn't a problem until you compare to the resolutions of the Fuji etc.
I would have liked a blind side by side with a reveal of which one was which. I liked the colors of the ektar better but that can be adjusted in photoshop I suppose. The detail in the background was the strongest difference you showed.
There was also micro structure and very subtle color issues mainly due to the Bayer pattern tech used in the Fuji but a skilled operator could make both quite good and once you take into consideration color mapping in a print they would be very close to the eye.
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.
Yes my point was to make it an unfair comparison as medium format will not hold up as well to the Fuji- the test proved that to be accurate but please share your thoughts
I wasn’t suggesting yours wasn’t a good test. I just think there’s a feeling among hybrid shooters (film/digital) that because the Fuji’s not a true MF sensor it isn’t as good as MF film. I suspect it won’t be close. I do wish there was an adapter to use my lovely Zeiss film lenses on a modern digital camera.
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.
One other point is that, since you're shooting different formats, you stopped the 4x5 down a lot more. That'd make scanning "ultra high res" not reveal any more detail because at f/32 the diffraction limit is around 2500 dpi (50 lp/mm). At f/8 it's 200 lp/mm. Of course, that's also assuming how well each lens would resolve at that spatial frequency.
I have not seen a lot of loss of sharpness with this lens at F32- have had and used for 20+ years- it is also stopped down more to have a more similar dof due to the larger film size
As an old professionally educated (film) photographer, my thoughts go back to about 1980 when 35mm colour film resolution would hover around 100 lp/mm, 120 film around 80 lp/mm and LF around 60 LP/mm. Pro grade 35mm lenses typically hovered around the 100 lp/mm too (at best) but centre sharpness could be much better and corner sharpness much less. We saw centre/corner differences in Leica lenses more than e.g. in Nikon lenses. But the average was about the same. I would shoot Hasselblad 500 series at the time, professionally and for selected work 4"*5" or 8"*10". There were several reasons to go to a larger format, but the most important was that enlargement (in printing) did not give as much loss of saturation as 35mm. Between 5"*7" and 8"*10", prints from my Nikon F2 would still be very good, but there was a slightly higher risk of unintended photographer caused motion blur due to less inertia and lower frame height than in the Hassy. The problem in enlargement of film is not the enlargement of grain, but of empty space between grains that gives saturation loss. In digital (I studied CS/AI in the 80's and lectured that in the 90s) there is an assumption of zero empty space that software maintains. When we print larger than 100%, our software (including drivers and printer "engines") invent more pixels and there's no saturation loss, necessarily. As most digital cameras are in the Bayer paradigm, what we see in RGB is an (algorithmic) AI version of a raw shot that only has monochromatic data elements: crude deBayerisation that generates mosaic patterns and demosaicking that may partially remove the junk. How well this mathematically precise and repeatable wild-assed guessing of missing colours is done, depends on the quality of the raw processing software to begin with (that's not Photoshop). Let's say that Adobe Camera Raw has been left at the level of about 2012 for a long time, while Adobe was spending money on developing the same old on mobile platforms in new code streams that raise the L in P&L. And yet I used ACR all that time. The photos I see in the video do not seem to have very high contrast and do not seem to use a very large colour space - that's not critique but merely would mean that extrapolation from these becomes less valid. I have to say the Ektar shot looks crisper and seems to have subtly better colour nuances (in lossy compressed YT video). But this could be a matter of the profile applied in the raw processing of the digital raw. That profile is not just about colour in the way an ICC would be, but it gives parameters to the raw conversion in several ways. If you use the Adobe Standard profile, then the applied profile is one of 1248 [3] different ones, specific to your camera (if supported as 1 of 1248), that all try to give you look-alike Adobe Standard. Note that ACR does raw processing into a 16 bits per channel ProPhoto colour space and when LrC displays that to your display, it compresses this for your 7 or 8 bits per channel monitor. In Ps you can convert this into 32 bits per channel even and you will see a subtle change in gradation on your 8 bpc monitor, even. Medium format? In photography school, the simple rule of thumb was, if it fits on 127 film then it is small format. That was a 40mm version of 60mm wide 620 film (120 has a different spool than 620 but is otherwise similar). That makes this Fuji camera "small format". And, we would say that LF started at the format we called 9*12 (rounded off in centimetres size) Is 102 MP a lot? MP are an area unit and as old school photographers we understand linear magnification and resolution and how linear predicts our perception. If you want to get significantly better images, then you need to linearly double resolution - assuming your eyes can see the difference and your kit can handle the best. B.t.w., examples of linear resolution are lp/mm, DPI, PPI. So a doubling linearly a sensor of X*Y=MP gives 2X*2Y=4MP -> so 96MP is twice as good as 24MP. Which explains why a 6MP old Leica still is good today, or a 12MP Nikon D700. This presumes "ceteris paribus" however and that gets violated e.g. in the case where one camera has a "fuzzy filter" [1] over the sensor With 60 lp/mm, you get into the 39MP ballpark with 4"*5" [2]. Or 155MP with 8"*10". Here I have to point to the words of Henri Cartier-Bresson: "sharpness is a [petit] bourgeois concept." That was pejorative to lower middle class people from an upper class guy who had gone to art school. He could have said it more woke, but "au fond" he was right. Bottom line is that it's all about our personal preferences and how we can derive pleasure from what we do. The technicalities are in no way related to our work ending up in the National Art Gallery forever. My "recognition AI AF with 3D tracking" that works in low light still at "only" 46MP gives me great pleasure in shooting portraits. It's fast, easily handheld, relatively light, relatively compact. No it's not cheap. And I can upsample my images to 32,000 on the long side for about 693MP. How good that is depends on the AI. I'll stay away from another can of worms in a rabbit hole called scanning ... [1] fuzzy filter, formally Optical Low-Pass Filter, is my nickname for the OLPF that got introduced into the Bayer paradigm as a way to make raw processing easier on the raw processing software. The OLPF disperses light travelling to photosite [x,y] so a fraction hits the direct neighbours. This makes the wild-assed colour guessing a bit easier, and helps reduce "jagged lines" or jagged edges. In the latter context the OLPF is also called an AA filter. The dispersion though has cons: reduced low light performance, reduced dynamic range (DR), reduced contrast envelope (DR in one shot), reduced colour space, reduced contour sharpness, and it messes with vignetting. In the case of Nikon, the OLPF got Eliminated from the 36MP D800 in their D800E version [2]. [2] As verification now go to DxO Mark and find the sharpest F-mount lens. With that same lens and staying full frame in all comparisons, now compare D800 to D800E sharpness. Shocking? Next compare a 24MP D cam era to the 36MP D800. Disappointing? And then compare D800E to a 45MP, say, D850. Disappointing? Why a 20MP D500 APS-C camera is so good compared to 24MP full frame? (a) linearly the difference is not big. (b) you violate ceteris paribus because the D500 has no OLPF. [3] in Windows, see C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Lightroom Classic\Resources\CameraProfiles\Adobe Standard\ which is where ACR finds its profiles. ACR is the Develop Tab in LrC. If you want to run ACR stand-alone, you need Bridge, go to an image file in there, right click and open in ACR. Note that your edits will be stored next to the image file in a sidecar file. Also note that LrC ignores ACR sidecars when you import images into LrC's catalogue.
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
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
Im not quite sure you can compare the two? Ive owned large format 4x5 , 5x7 and 8x10's , but Ive also owned digital. I do not compare the two because they are different processes from the get go - one based on digital software and pixels, the other on a series of chemical reactions on physical medium. For me digital eventually won out for the simplicity, as well as not requiring chemistry and a darkroom. However thanks for the demonstration
Is it just me who found the audio disappeared as soon as you put up the comparison images? I can hear feint mumbling in the background but I can't quite make it out. I would have loved to hear what you were saying. Looking at the other comments I don't see anyone else mentioning it!
@@FIGITALREVOLUTION I've done some more testing. I can hear the audio on my iphone, but using a Windows10 PC the audio disappears. I'm sure my phone is using a different stream to the one my computer is using, so it seems that one of the streams that UA-cam generated is somehow faulty.
Really interesting comparison! It’s amazing how close the two are with that particular film and setup. I’m curious though with the higher res scan if you could get a sharper image at a lower aperture - I think that at f32 diffraction might be starting to soften things a bit. Either way I do very slightly prefer the film colours and tonality. As for myself I also use a GFX professionally and film for personal work - not because film holds any technical advantage but to me it has a tactility, character and soul as well necessitating a more considered image making process which is a lot of fun!
My thoughts exactly. My GFX/4x5 experience matches yours, although I still use LF for work. It's likely C41 rather than E6 would make a better candidate for comparison on the dynamic range front. Hard to not love those 4x5 transparencies, though... even slightly over-exposed ones;)
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!)
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!
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.
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.
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...😀
Same here, US, 44 years advertising….but Sinar F1.
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.
@@PanAmStyleLook at 7mins where the grass is much warmer in the Fuji shot.
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!
Thank you.
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.
@@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.
Truest comment. Haha. Was really fun to watch the comparison!
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. 😊
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-
@@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.
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 $$
@@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
@@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
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.
Yep! 8x10 is soooo beautiful
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.
Depth of field is very different.
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.
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!
You’re incredibly skilled to pull this test off so closely! Incredible work
Thank you!
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!
Thank you!
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. 😊
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.
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.
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.
Nice!
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!
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!
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!
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.
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 :)
Yes, GF110mm. and GF45mm the Best.
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.
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
Was actually using the histogram- the highlight is not clipped in the plate- just checked- just too close to the edge!
@@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.
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 --
@@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.
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.
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.
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 UA-cam 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.
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.
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.
I’ve always wondered about this comparison thx so much! I have the Fuji and am blown away at the quality files it produces.
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 )
I may be very off here, but it appears that the first comparison pictures side-byside you describe - Fuji on the left, 4x5 on the right - are juxtapositioned as you describe being able to read the white license plate and that the wood colors are warmer; that appears to be the one on the left, whereas the one on the right has less wood contrast and is more washed in color and the grays are more lighter than the one on the left and the roofing on the left has more contrast and detail than the one on the right. Also, the grass and most other colors seem more bright and fuller than the one on the right that's supposed to be the 4x5 film. Please correct me in this with further details if I'm wrong so I don't make the same mistake in comparison of future photos. Great work in both regardless. And thank you for these videos!...
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.
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)
I didn't think it was close. Film, head and shoulders above, both in color and in clarity.
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.
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
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
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
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.
Thank you!
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!
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.
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.)
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.
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!
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!
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!
The diffraction is not a huge issue- really- the loss in sharpness at this film size is minimal especially when you see a print
@@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!
The film seems better by a tiny bit. Great comparison!!!!
Thank you!
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.
Totally agree on DOF. I'm not terribly interested in focus stacking and sitting at a computer for hours. :)
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.
Thank you for doing this. My two cents worth -- is that I'd have to see the actual images on a calibrated workstation to really know what's what. The Fuji looked substantially green to my eye -- but is that UA-cam? Or my screen? Etc. It would help to include a Macbeth color checker in frame for this kind of thing. The big thing that I notice with film vs digital is the influence of grain pattern -- which varies considerably with density -- and the halation layer; blown out film is quite different to blown out digital.
. . . but as a practical man and a less than meticulous photographer -- the issue is that when one shoots film, all sorts of things can go wrong. Are you developing with fresh chemistry?, and so on. Every little thing counts.
Yeah it’s always difficult to convey the subtle qualities on UA-cam- 4K playback helps- I make everything on my calibrated system but most people just view on a phone.
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. 😎
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 😄
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.
Just a thought when discussing the detail extracted later in the video - is it perhaps that the lenses for the Large Format (and arguably the larger medium formats) just aren't optically good enough to resolve more detail rather than that being a limitation of the film. What would be interesting is if there was a same lens for lens comparison that could be done (crop factor taken into account, or use speed booster etc etc) - as I think the glass designed for these 4x5 and 8x10 film cameras was never designed to take 100MP image scans. But with the correct optics, in theory you'd be over a Gigapixel in detail if my math is correct? (if you assume the max reasonable res of Ektar 100 for example is around 20MP on 35mm area but higher on slide film again at loss of dynamic range, but that could sometimes be combated with grad filters)
On a proper drum scanner the film can resolve an amazing amount of detail but that is getting hard to find and $$$. A 3200 scan in sections on an Imacon would be close to 1GB as a RGB 16Bit file. But again how much resolution you needs is based on print size as there are definitely limitations in printing resolution.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Which profile did you start with on the Fuji? Adobe Neutral and Standard will hold the highlights better. Also, add a tiny bit of grain to the GFX files (especially the BW ones in your other video) and you will see that the result is much closer. Furthermore, did you set the Imacon to sharpness -120 for the Ektar and the BW scan? It seems it's scanning a lot of over sharpened grain which makes it looks a bit oversharpened, especially on the BW scan in the other video. I have the same issue on my Imacon X1, need to dial in -120 for a good scan
I always use the Imacon at -120- as for the Fuji it was Adobe Standard- but it has not use for me as a camera-
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.
You bet!
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.
Never say never.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Labor of love!
I agree, SUPER close race. Certainly the time and extra equipment of Film is a major detractor at this point.
Thanks for your in depth test. You lost me when you referenced depth of field for the Kodak ektar exposure at f32 (you could have adjusted the camera standards and achieved full depth of field) and then shot the ektar at the same exposure as the Fuji. Stopping down as far as f32 reduces micro contrast and reduces image fidelity via lines of confusion - I might also have missed any reference to the lens or lenses used. The comparison is very useful but if the optics are different - your really can’t attribute quality advantage to either sensor or film. But again thanks for your detailed work.
Using the standards would have been great but would have given an advantage to the film- lenses were both the best of the best and matched the view as best as possible-
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.
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.
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
I’m working on a part 2 now with BW film and in that conclusion will be going over cost and other details--
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.
Are there ways to make the test more precise? Probably, but I think part of the comparison is testing workflow. A reasonable 4x5 workflow, and somewhat realistic shooting conditions. As a result, it feels like there’s more to film, a bit more life to the image and probably a tad more potential if doing everything possible to maximize it. But the results here are close enough that if convenience is a factor, digital isn’t far off. If you’re working on someone else’s schedule, GFX has a lot to offer. All optics are tradeoffs, and something like the Fuji gains a lot of time and a much easier workflow without trading off as much to film as many cameras would have five to ten years ago.
The reverse side of that, however, is that if convenience isn’t a factor, and it’s all your own time, Film still has a lot going for it. Large format in particular, considering everything you can do with the camera.
But heck… I’m someone who enjoys shooting half frame 135, despite the fact that with a workflow I can manage, I’ll get “better results” on APS-C digital than full-frame 135.
Most of my artwork is currently shot on modified 110 film cameras and printed on brown paper bags 😂
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.
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 UA-cam 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.
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...
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.
A much needed serious comparison. Informative.
Any possibility of a review using Linhof and lens on GFX 100?? Just curious..
Not really- I don’t own and can afford the camera- would be fun to do but $$$ won’t allow
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!
I agree - film makes me happy!
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!
Yes indeed.
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.
I’ll do a post on that with my Aero Ektar soon
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.
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!
My foot pump is red. Scanner - Flextight Precision II. Thanks for the comparison. Ps: My fav camera size 4x10 or 5x7
I shot a lot of 4x10!!!
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.
Welcome!!!
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.
Happy to help!
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
By the way just subscribed. This video was amazing 👏
Thank you!
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
I always prefer to work on a film scan over a digital file -
The greens in the film looked more natural, in the digital the greens looked like they were goosed up or there was some strange HDR effect automatically applied.
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.
A very interesting comparison. Thank you for this.
Yep!
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).
Imacon scanners in good shape are selling for a lot of $$$ these days
@@FIGITALREVOLUTION Good to hear. Should I be trying eBay or someplace like KEH?
It would be interesting to compare the film to Phase One 150mp.
It would but unfortunately I don’t have access to a Phase One
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.
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.
I was curious about the aperture difference. The background certainly wasn’t sharp. So I guess I would attribute that to the aperture. F/8.5 and f/35 is a huge difference.
But great comparison. Unless one is making absolutely huge prints I would probably prefer digital for its convenience (the background detail wouldn’t matter). Thanks for the video.
Actually when you consider the sensor size it is not a big difference- generally for a sensor of this size you would need to stop down at least two stops to get an equivalent DOF -- so F8.5 on the Fuji would be at least F16.5 / 22 but my experience has shown that on that lens 16-32 is fantastic.
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.
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!!!
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!!
Thank you! Fall is almost here in Southern VT
This is more a review between Fuji (sensor and lens) and your scanner. Try scanning the 4x5 with your fuji... Joking aside, drum scan it. Also, it's night and day that the Ektar shot in this review is superior in dynamic range. Imacons struggle at the resolutions you tested, which isn't a problem until you compare to the resolutions of the Fuji etc.
I would have liked a blind side by side with a reveal of which one was which. I liked the colors of the ektar better but that can be adjusted in photoshop I suppose. The detail in the background was the strongest difference you showed.
There was also micro structure and very subtle color issues mainly due to the Bayer pattern tech used in the Fuji but a skilled operator could make both quite good and once you take into consideration color mapping in a print they would be very close to the eye.
@@FIGITALREVOLUTION I’m a layman and just take photos for fun.
I think the Fuji did well, but love the 4x5. If I'm not wrong the fuji sensor is something closer to 127 size film?
Yep- that was definitely my point- the Fuji despot being smaller did very well indeed.
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.
You are welcome!
I’m waiting on my GFXs II to arrive. It’ll be interesting to compare it to my 6x6 MF Rolleiflex 6008. More of a fair comparison?
Yes my point was to make it an unfair comparison as medium format will not hold up as well to the Fuji- the test proved that to be accurate but please share your thoughts
I wasn’t suggesting yours wasn’t a good test. I just think there’s a feeling among hybrid shooters (film/digital) that because the Fuji’s not a true MF sensor it isn’t as good as MF film. I suspect it won’t be close.
I do wish there was an adapter to use my lovely Zeiss film lenses on a modern digital camera.
There may be adapters for the Fuji- I know Hasselblad lenses can be used as it is a mirror less camera
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.
Absolutely- bigger film or bigger sensor has a greater sense of dimensional qualities-
One other point is that, since you're shooting different formats, you stopped the 4x5 down a lot more. That'd make scanning "ultra high res" not reveal any more detail because at f/32 the diffraction limit is around 2500 dpi (50 lp/mm). At f/8 it's 200 lp/mm. Of course, that's also assuming how well each lens would resolve at that spatial frequency.
I have not seen a lot of loss of sharpness with this lens at F32- have had and used for 20+ years- it is also stopped down more to have a more similar dof due to the larger film size
As an old professionally educated (film) photographer, my thoughts go back to about 1980 when 35mm colour film resolution would hover around 100 lp/mm, 120 film around 80 lp/mm and LF around 60 LP/mm.
Pro grade 35mm lenses typically hovered around the 100 lp/mm too (at best) but centre sharpness could be much better and corner sharpness much less. We saw centre/corner differences in Leica lenses more than e.g. in Nikon lenses. But the average was about the same.
I would shoot Hasselblad 500 series at the time, professionally and for selected work 4"*5" or 8"*10".
There were several reasons to go to a larger format, but the most important was that enlargement (in printing) did not give as much loss of saturation as 35mm. Between 5"*7" and 8"*10", prints from my Nikon F2 would still be very good, but there was a slightly higher risk of unintended photographer caused motion blur due to less inertia and lower frame height than in the Hassy.
The problem in enlargement of film is not the enlargement of grain, but of empty space between grains that gives saturation loss.
In digital (I studied CS/AI in the 80's and lectured that in the 90s) there is an assumption of zero empty space that software maintains. When we print larger than 100%, our software (including drivers and printer "engines") invent more pixels and there's no saturation loss, necessarily.
As most digital cameras are in the Bayer paradigm, what we see in RGB is an (algorithmic) AI version of a raw shot that only has monochromatic data elements: crude deBayerisation that generates mosaic patterns and demosaicking that may partially remove the junk. How well this mathematically precise and repeatable wild-assed guessing of missing colours is done, depends on the quality of the raw processing software to begin with (that's not Photoshop). Let's say that Adobe Camera Raw has been left at the level of about 2012 for a long time, while Adobe was spending money on developing the same old on mobile platforms in new code streams that raise the L in P&L. And yet I used ACR all that time.
The photos I see in the video do not seem to have very high contrast and do not seem to use a very large colour space - that's not critique but merely would mean that extrapolation from these becomes less valid. I have to say the Ektar shot looks crisper and seems to have subtly better colour nuances (in lossy compressed YT video).
But this could be a matter of the profile applied in the raw processing of the digital raw. That profile is not just about colour in the way an ICC would be, but it gives parameters to the raw conversion in several ways. If you use the Adobe Standard profile, then the applied profile is one of 1248 [3] different ones, specific to your camera (if supported as 1 of 1248), that all try to give you look-alike Adobe Standard.
Note that ACR does raw processing into a 16 bits per channel ProPhoto colour space and when LrC displays that to your display, it compresses this for your 7 or 8 bits per channel monitor. In Ps you can convert this into 32 bits per channel even and you will see a subtle change in gradation on your 8 bpc monitor, even.
Medium format? In photography school, the simple rule of thumb was, if it fits on 127 film then it is small format. That was a 40mm version of 60mm wide 620 film (120 has a different spool than 620 but is otherwise similar). That makes this Fuji camera "small format". And, we would say that LF started at the format we called 9*12 (rounded off in centimetres size)
Is 102 MP a lot? MP are an area unit and as old school photographers we understand linear magnification and resolution and how linear predicts our perception. If you want to get significantly better images, then you need to linearly double resolution - assuming your eyes can see the difference and your kit can handle the best.
B.t.w., examples of linear resolution are lp/mm, DPI, PPI.
So a doubling linearly a sensor of X*Y=MP gives 2X*2Y=4MP -> so 96MP is twice as good as 24MP. Which explains why a 6MP old Leica still is good today, or a 12MP Nikon D700.
This presumes "ceteris paribus" however and that gets violated e.g. in the case where one camera has a "fuzzy filter" [1] over the sensor
With 60 lp/mm, you get into the 39MP ballpark with 4"*5" [2]. Or 155MP with 8"*10".
Here I have to point to the words of Henri Cartier-Bresson: "sharpness is a [petit] bourgeois concept." That was pejorative to lower middle class people from an upper class guy who had gone to art school. He could have said it more woke, but "au fond" he was right.
Bottom line is that it's all about our personal preferences and how we can derive pleasure from what we do. The technicalities are in no way related to our work ending up in the National Art Gallery forever.
My "recognition AI AF with 3D tracking" that works in low light still at "only" 46MP gives me great pleasure in shooting portraits. It's fast, easily handheld, relatively light, relatively compact. No it's not cheap. And I can upsample my images to 32,000 on the long side for about 693MP. How good that is depends on the AI.
I'll stay away from another can of worms in a rabbit hole called scanning ...
[1] fuzzy filter, formally Optical Low-Pass Filter, is my nickname for the OLPF that got introduced into the Bayer paradigm as a way to make raw processing easier on the raw processing software. The OLPF disperses light travelling to photosite [x,y] so a fraction hits the direct neighbours.
This makes the wild-assed colour guessing a bit easier, and helps reduce "jagged lines" or jagged edges. In the latter context the OLPF is also called an AA filter.
The dispersion though has cons: reduced low light performance, reduced dynamic range (DR), reduced contrast envelope (DR in one shot), reduced colour space, reduced contour sharpness, and it messes with vignetting.
In the case of Nikon, the OLPF got Eliminated from the 36MP D800 in their D800E version [2].
[2] As verification now go to DxO Mark and find the sharpest F-mount lens.
With that same lens and staying full frame in all comparisons, now compare D800 to D800E sharpness. Shocking?
Next compare a 24MP D cam era to the 36MP D800. Disappointing?
And then compare D800E to a 45MP, say, D850. Disappointing?
Why a 20MP D500 APS-C camera is so good compared to 24MP full frame? (a) linearly the difference is not big. (b) you violate ceteris paribus because the D500 has no OLPF.
[3] in Windows, see C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Lightroom Classic\Resources\CameraProfiles\Adobe Standard\ which is where ACR finds its profiles. ACR is the Develop Tab in LrC. If you want to run ACR stand-alone, you need Bridge, go to an image file in there, right click and open in ACR. Note that your edits will be stored next to the image file in a sidecar file. Also note that LrC ignores ACR sidecars when you import images into LrC's catalogue.
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
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
Im not quite sure you can compare the two? Ive owned large format 4x5 , 5x7 and 8x10's , but Ive also owned digital. I do not compare the two because they are different processes from the get go - one based on digital software and pixels, the other on a series of chemical reactions on physical medium. For me digital eventually won out for the simplicity, as well as not requiring chemistry and a darkroom. However thanks for the demonstration
Is it just me who found the audio disappeared as soon as you put up the comparison images? I can hear feint mumbling in the background but I can't quite make it out. I would have loved to hear what you were saying. Looking at the other comments I don't see anyone else mentioning it!
Sounds like a band with or UA-cam issue as I just checked and it’s all there- please maybe reload and try again
@@FIGITALREVOLUTION I've done some more testing. I can hear the audio on my iphone, but using a Windows10 PC the audio disappears. I'm sure my phone is using a different stream to the one my computer is using, so it seems that one of the streams that UA-cam generated is somehow faulty.
Really interesting comparison! It’s amazing how close the two are with that particular film and setup. I’m curious though with the higher res scan if you could get a sharper image at a lower aperture - I think that at f32 diffraction might be starting to soften things a bit. Either way I do very slightly prefer the film colours and tonality.
As for myself I also use a GFX professionally and film for personal work - not because film holds any technical advantage but to me it has a tactility, character and soul as well necessitating a more considered image making process which is a lot of fun!
Yes exactly why I love the choice of both- it took over 20 years but digital capture has finally arrived and at a price point that is reasonable.
My thoughts exactly. My GFX/4x5 experience matches yours, although I still use LF for work. It's likely C41 rather than E6 would make a better candidate for comparison on the dynamic range front. Hard to not love those 4x5 transparencies, though... even slightly over-exposed ones;)
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!)
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!
I compared my GFX 100 and 100II with 120mm (super sharp lens) against 8x10. Gfx was slightly sharper but it’s about same or better for gfx .