I totally agree, but I also think that shooting film causes you to TRY and shoot better images. Especially on medium format 'cuz every shot costs 2 dollars. I found when I was shooting on digital, I was just *click*click*click*click*click*click* and not really paying attention. Shooting on film has definitely helped me slow down and actually care about how I'm framing my work again, which I do appreciate.
isn't ironic then that he is using a medium format camera and film to shoot instagram influencer style pics of her girlfriend? Shouldn't he go for something more creative/artistic then? I feel it contradicts the mesage of the video.
Love this Sam. I'd suggest metering at 320 if you're metering at 400 typically. You mentioned some of your shots being underexposed, this will help with that. Kirk Mastin of Mastin Labs has this Film Nominal Speed ISO chart that states the best speed to rate each film stock at. He says Portra 400 is best at 320. Might be worth giving it a try. Love your work and thanks for making these videos.
I've been following you for years and the second you started shooting film I had noticed that your vision of photographing things had changed for the better. Thank you for spreading your knowledge and evolution of your art to us!
I truly like the way you explain it And you are the few out there who look on what you’re doing. Most people they just hold the camera and let the camera do the work. And they call them self professional photographer. I love film
Was just gonna say that. Most times when I see these videos the photographer doesn't do the conversions. I'd say Full Frame is the sweet spot for photography. Still good content here though
Looking at purely the image quality capabilities, the 120 film will always be better than any digital camera available. But only with the right lenses, film stock, and lab technology. A Pentax 67 can run Kodak Vision3 65mm film through it, which is the same type that an IMAX camera uses, and the film planes are nearly the same size. Which dwarfs even the largest medium format digital sensors. And if you get this Kodak film developed and scanned in the same way that Hollywood does (which is expensive) you will get results better than anything you'd even see in high end digital cinema cameras. I've heard that the Vision3 70mm can be pushed to look like 3200 ISO with fast lenses. The shots have at least 20 stops of dynamic range, and are theoretically scannable up to ~12k in resolution. The color depth is so good most people hardly even need to grade their shots. Now none of this is super practical for every day work, but it's interesting to think about the fact that the 30-50 year old $800 medium format stills cameras will basically be future proof. People need to make some new lenses for them.
@Bobby Brady but who says you scan it, if you want to make prints for example. Also there is more than the quality. As said, the unique DOF for example.
@Bobby Brady Not sure about that. If you scan the negatives at the same density as a 35mm digital senson (which you can especially with a very low iso film), you will get a much higher resolution, and depending on film stock, a much greater dynamic range.
@Bobby Brady Thats wrong. They dont crush film they just take images that are theoretically clinically perfect. As in no flaws. That makes them worse right off the bat as that is not pleasing to the eyes.
@Bobby Brady I highly doubt that as you seem to lack experience and are making all kinds of false claims. If you did then you were someone who shouldnt be anywhere within a mile of any film or digital cameras at all.
What strikes me about your images is how you can edit the digital pictures and they almost look like the medium format film. Obviously the depth is different but how do you match your editing style to the film 🤔🤔 it’s fantastic. Love the video!
play with the colours, add colour to the shadows and highlights, most of the time i add a bit of red to the shadows and some light blue to the highlights to get a "pastel" film look and then lower the contrast because film's dynamic range is better than digital dynamic range
@Bobby Brady which would only ever be a problem if the ultimate goal of photography is to portray everything realistically all the time. Which isn't the case really.
@Bobby Brady I don't think that's what the channel author was referring to. Doing what he does can be used in a very subtle manner. "Reasonable accuracy" still allows room for that personal stamp every decent photographer puts into his work. After all, different film stocks produce different color signatures, some of which are very far off what we deem accurate judged by our own eyes, which is what gives them charm. Are we to say that film is then unrealistic, even though it's based on chemistry? If you are referring to young photographers using those cheap looking one-click presets for Lightroom, then I agree. Most of the time it looks like crap, especially because they are applied to everything even to images made in light conditions that aren't favorable for those presets at all. In other words, they merely apply it without knowing what each of the tools does to an image. That said, I don't see any of that in the work presented here.
I think in this particular test, you should use equivalent apertura related to the format size. For a full frame 35 mm f 1.4 is equivalent to f 2.8 , the depth of field should be close. But a zoom lens will give a completely different rendition rendering the test useless. May be you your repeat the test wit the right parameters.
Film : when I want to really think about it. When I would hang the picture on my wall. Digital : Everything else. Bonus points if I can hang it on my wall. Dope video. Kill it with both.
thats like showing up to a car race and now you want a head start because your car is shit. you buy cameras for a spific look. 80 f2 vs 80f2 that is real world
@@MegaSumo67 Sorry for performing necromancy on your comment, but this is just wrong. While you cannot get anything faster than f1.8 on medium format, you can go waaay faster on fullframe. f1.2, f1, hell, even f0.95.
The equivalent in 35mm sensor for the 80 2.0 planar on 645 is a 50 1.2 lens. I have made this comparison for myself with Mamiya 645 and 80 1.9 against sony a7r and Canon FDn 50 1.2 L. It is exactly the same BUT :) color negative films are much much better in capturing realistic and pleasing to the eye colors and detail. It was pretty hard editing the digital pictures to get the same result in some cases like back light, strong contrast scenes, sunset light is much better captured on film, digital cameras tend to turn the red-orange colors to yellow pretty easy.
Sorry if this is a stupid question, I am a noob.....but how do you get the film photograph onto the screen here? Do you develop it and then scan it to digital? I assume that would reduce fidelity?
A fairer comparison would have been to use the 50/1.2 which is what the 80/2 Planar is comparable to. And Mastin Lab Portra presets for Canon which are calibrated to emulate Frontier scans. I enjoy your content. Esp your FJ60.
@@canturgan no, I mean that it has a rendering that isn't just completely flat. As I have said, 24-70 is a fine lens, but it is put against a prime lens in this case. There are many Canon L lenses that would fare much better in this comparison. 85L, 50L, something like that.
@@canturgan and also, because it is a zoom lens, even though it's a professional lens, it will vignette and it will distort more that a prime lens. Being a professional lens does not negate those flaws. I don't have a problem with that just like you, but it has its flaws.
what I've discovered is that as I grow as a photographer and editor the more they both look the same. This seems to back that up to me. They are different looking but could easily be made to look even more alike. That's just consistency I guess. I want to need a nice Hasselblad, but I just don't think I do lol... The only thing I think I really prefer film for still is BW documentary style. It's hard/not fun to reproduce the serendipity and grain of that style of photography.
To many parameters for a fair comparison! Do you develop the film for yourself or a lab? Then how careful is you or lab? Flatbed scanner-dedicated filmscanner or pro drumscanning? What program and parameters for scanning? My workflow: OM4-Portra-C41-Plustek-Vuescan-Lightroom.
Curious, why didn't you use a fast prime on the Canon to try to match the depth of the medium format? Using a 50 f1.4 would have been a more compelling comparison IMO.
I have a similar setup: 5D mkIV and Pentax 645n. I tend to shoot film more for personal photography like portrait shoots and digital for event & weddings where I'm being paid. If I'm REALLY wanting to challenge myself for a photoshoot I borrow my friends Pentax 6x7 lol. Good work, the model looks stellar in these.
they can technically look the same by framing subjects the same way only way to differenciate them is with the amount of detail the medium format gives love this
I really enjoy shooting film but I also enjoy editing photos so I end up changing the color of the film maybe a little bit too much.. what do you think of this? Should I just go digital?
Very cool video, I got my degree in photography shooting and printing film but I can appreciate how far digital has come. I'm still a fan of shooting film and am especially excited by the resolution possibilities of shooting on large format 4x5.
Samuel of you don’t mind me saying. try next time when doing this type of comparison to use an 85 prime 1.4 on the digital and stand back because even though the 80 f2 is field of view of a 50mm it’s got the depth of 80mm plus 2.8 zoom just not going to compete.
I guess DoF difference can be closely matched with 645 on full frame digital though, just shoot an F1.4 prime. Especially adapt a vintage 1.4 prime and manual focus the shot at the same ISO as the film with IBIS off = something much closer to the sharpness of the film shot. If people want similar results on digital we have to actually put the effort in to match the depth of field and optical characteristics and focus conditions.
The big reason I don’t shoot digital is the constant amount of upgrades companies push. Luckily film cameras, to a degree, aren’t made anymore so you can get the best camera for a fraction of the price. For me I only use medium format and I haven’t got a need to upgrade. I love using my mamiya rz67 and 645 afd and I see myself using them far into the future. Long live film !!!
Kodak is ramping up film production massively and Fuji is supposedly coming back too, And ive heard rumors of companies making new film cameras. Because everyone realized finally film is vastly better in almost every way compared to digital, except for convenience. Film is great, the colors are fantastic, and some of the landmarks and stuff where i live just look amazing on film. Im working to shoot all the landmarks and historical sites in my county. Sot of put out a book on all of them.
Not only did you have to depend on your knowledge but you also had to depend on the lab. Searching for a dependable lab that could produce pleasing images on the cheap was a real pain. Now I’m in the lab so I can’t complain.
This video is beautifully shot and it’s clear you have the understanding on both formats to make your measured judgments. Thanks for making a quality comparison that can mean something to those asking the question :)
"Amazing photographers can make consistently great work with any sort of camera - no matter the format." - Samuel Elkins. Amazing statement and beautiful informative video. Also, what film do you use specifically?
I learn how to use and understand a camera shooting film /. I went from my first camera a Yashica Electro 35 gs Rangefinder • 35mm Camera. Then Canon A-1, Mamiya RB67 Pros Medium Format w/ Sekor 90mm lens. and now D7200.
I did not really get the point on why you locked the ISO and Zoom of your digital Camera. Aren't swtiching ISO and having high quality zooms one of the advantages of shooting digital? 50mm Prime lens would have been a little better over for comparison instead of the zoom lens. Just my opinion, no hard feelings man. I really liked both of the images, the Zeiss 80mm is easily one of the best lenses out there.
Great video as always. If I could wish for a video, it would with someone like you, that have the gear and knowledge and eye, to make an even more in-depth one of digital vs film regarding colors. I think the colors of film is the most fascinating of all. Maybe shoot the same photo with both systems and then show the raw output and how you'd go ahead to finalise the film, and then if it's possible to get the same result with the digital one.
I've been wanting to buy a camera but I don't know if I wanted Film or digital. They always say you can delete digital and bla bla bla while Film can't. I also always find myself defending the film, because I wanted to try a new way of capturing things. But i am also scared cuz like im not that great at capturing stuff so I don't know mygahdd help me😭
Thanks for the video. I’d like to get a digital camera, but I want one that can shoot well in lower light conditions. I’ve seen the Sony A7III, but it’s definitely out of my price range. I’m not sure what else would be good for lower light stuff. I don’t really have any loyalty to any brands since I don’t own a camera myself. I don’t intend to use photography as my job, but I would like to use some photography within my own mixed media work as a visual artist.
I've never used a film camera but I got one through a trade, it is the mamiya c220 I've seen alot of good things about the c220, do you know anything about the c220 if you do what do you think
Hey, great video man, I really enjoyed this. I loved shooting medium format back in my film days but that was a very long time ago. I am going to have to pick it back up again. It looks like you had a lot of fun. I sometimes shoot 35mm film just for fun, but its not like the joy of medium format. How do you develop and scan your medium format negs into your digital workflow? would love to know. Cheers
for some time i’ve had this feeling that because really great photographers shoot film, my photos shot with digital camera are pure trash and will never be as good as they would be on film. I feel like my photos look like a 2 year old with some old phone shot them. How to overcame that feeling? Is shooting film really superior to shooting digital (because it’s harder- you can’t see your photos instantly and you have to actually know something about photography to shoot film)?
"Is shooting film really superior to shooting digital" no and don't let the fanboys tell you otherwise. pictures are pictures in the end. and in most cases, digital is better unless you just want to burn money on film gear and development etc. you can buy a used good digital camera, a vintage lens and start taking photos with lots of flaws all for under 1000 bucks. depending on the gear you can probably add a more clinically perfect modern lens too and get the best of both worlds
yeah man, also the cost. MF cameras are off the charts... also the lens play a huuuuuuuge roll here. Love the video tho! can't believe anyone would see these images and not say the MF ones are 1-0000000000000000 times better
A Contax camera and 80/2 Planar are about $3k, maybe a tad more. If you part it out, the price pretty much splits evenly between the Contax body and Zeiss 80/2. Price that against a Nikon D850 or a nice Sony plus lens. It’s actually not that over the top expensive.
I see no difference between the two. In most cases now, shooting film for RUclips is the photographers way of saying ‘hey look at me, I’m so cool, I’m shooting film, that makes me such a better photographer than anyone else’
Bobby Brady Yes resolution is better obviously but that doesn’t necessarily make it better. Some people like the colours and grain of film. The look of film is what defined photography for over 100 years.
@@teleaddict23 Heres the truth, Digital and FIlm photography have places in the world, they are both useful for different reasons and neither obsoletes the other except that film will outlast digital in the end.
Hi there! Try pentax 645 n / n ii which is a good af medium format camera, joy to shoot it. Portable, comparatively fresh, easy to handle and almost perfect lens quality.
The real difference between medium format film or digital and 35mm or full frame digital or film is simply that medium format can allow you to be closer to your subject and attain greater detail by being closer, if all other factors are equal which they won't be but in a vacuum medium format film or digital will have slightly more detail by being physically closer to the subject and being able to get the same or similar field/angle of view. Medium format film resolves higher quality detail even when comparing digital FF to a certain point. Technically speaking modern 35mm lenses have surpassed medium format film lenses due to modern lens coatings and optical design. Currently Hasselblad, Phase One, Pentax and Fuji MF have the best cameras and lenses regarding digital image quality. They have more pixels and a higher pixel pitch than there 35mm counterparts. Add that you can get closer to your subject and still have the same frame. All this doesn't mean a thing unless you're pixel peeping or printing insanely larger prints on insanely good printers. Otherwise what's the point? The avg. monitor is still 1080p, we're only just getting into 4k which is only 8.3mp and 8k is 33mp our eyes are weird we can only focus on a certain portion of our field of view at a time, everything else is blurred, example look at your cellphone the try to while still on your phone screen look outside your focus, your eyes are blurred outside of your focus point. So 100mp is possibly the limit of our eyes even if we can technically see over 500mp. And I'm rambling. Unless you're cropping in massively or preserving history through insane detail there's no point in going beyond 12mp which gives you just enough to adjust framing and lens distortion in post. If you need more than 12mp something is seriously wrong with the shooter and not the camera.
Not a fair comparison. The cameras should have used the same lenses. I shoot film for the image quality, especially in B&W, where digital looks pretty bad compared to film. I suspect what he is showing us are film scans too, not actual prints. Your negative is simply your starting point, everything really happens in the darkroom. Scanning film is fine for some things, but don't expect it to come anywhere near the quality of a well made print out of a darkroom.
Well, I think you should be comparing at the same f stop. Obviously, if one is f/2.8 and the other f/1.2 equivalent, you will see a difference. I happen to have a Pentax f/1.2 for a 35mm film. And it makes a difference, until you put an f/1.2 canon lens on the canon. I love my pentax because it's so compact compared to a similarly powerful digital setup. It fits into the glove box. And quite cheap. And doesn't run out of batteries. I'm still waiting for a serious reason why film is better. Nostalgia.
![ARGENTINA vs. BOLIVIA [6-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/C3wPtKNbAOA/mqdefault.jpg)
Just because you shoot film doesn't automatically make it a good image. Finally someone said it. 👍🏾
I totally agree, but I also think that shooting film causes you to TRY and shoot better images. Especially on medium format 'cuz every shot costs 2 dollars. I found when I was shooting on digital, I was just *click*click*click*click*click*click* and not really paying attention. Shooting on film has definitely helped me slow down and actually care about how I'm framing my work again, which I do appreciate.
@Bobby Brady it's not forcing, it is a tool.
@Bobby Brady you're dumb if you have 12 shots left on your memory card you would do the same.
Was this every an actual argument?
isn't ironic then that he is using a medium format camera and film to shoot instagram influencer style pics of her girlfriend?
Shouldn't he go for something more creative/artistic then?
I feel it contradicts the mesage of the video.
Love this Sam. I'd suggest metering at 320 if you're metering at 400 typically. You mentioned some of your shots being underexposed, this will help with that. Kirk Mastin of Mastin Labs has this Film Nominal Speed ISO chart that states the best speed to rate each film stock at. He says Portra 400 is best at 320. Might be worth giving it a try. Love your work and thanks for making these videos.
More like 200 ISO. Overexposure is definitely desirable on negative film.
@@canturgan would you then underexpose one stop during development?
@@red92diaz No.
@@canturgan so if I meter a 400 speed film for 200, do i tell my lab i shot it on 200 just so they develop it normally?
@@mikechisholm Don't tell them anything.
I've been following you for years and the second you started shooting film I had noticed that your vision of photographing things had changed for the better.
Thank you for spreading your knowledge and evolution of your art to us!
I truly like the way you explain it
And you are the few out there who look on what you’re doing. Most people they just hold the camera and let the camera do the work. And they call them self professional photographer. I love film
Beautiful video, beautiful model, beautiful cameras. Love it.
hey man, make a comparison of medium format and 35mm, love your videos man!!!!
Now grab canon 50/1.2 and let's do it again... Great photos and video man! But don't compare full frame with zoom and midium format with prime 😉
Was just gonna say that. Most times when I see these videos the photographer doesn't do the conversions. I'd say Full Frame is the sweet spot for photography. Still good content here though
Looking at purely the image quality capabilities, the 120 film will always be better than any digital camera available. But only with the right lenses, film stock, and lab technology. A Pentax 67 can run Kodak Vision3 65mm film through it, which is the same type that an IMAX camera uses, and the film planes are nearly the same size. Which dwarfs even the largest medium format digital sensors. And if you get this Kodak film developed and scanned in the same way that Hollywood does (which is expensive) you will get results better than anything you'd even see in high end digital cinema cameras. I've heard that the Vision3 70mm can be pushed to look like 3200 ISO with fast lenses. The shots have at least 20 stops of dynamic range, and are theoretically scannable up to ~12k in resolution. The color depth is so good most people hardly even need to grade their shots. Now none of this is super practical for every day work, but it's interesting to think about the fact that the 30-50 year old $800 medium format stills cameras will basically be future proof. People need to make some new lenses for them.
Totally agree with you. I can just imagine 120 Velvia 50 or Ektachrome 100 or Portra 160 or Ektar shot with the modern Phase One lenses!
@Bobby Brady but who says you scan it, if you want to make prints for example. Also there is more than the quality. As said, the unique DOF for example.
@Bobby Brady Not sure about that. If you scan the negatives at the same density as a 35mm digital senson (which you can especially with a very low iso film), you will get a much higher resolution, and depending on film stock, a much greater dynamic range.
@Bobby Brady Thats wrong. They dont crush film they just take images that are theoretically clinically perfect. As in no flaws. That makes them worse right off the bat as that is not pleasing to the eyes.
@Bobby Brady I highly doubt that as you seem to lack experience and are making all kinds of false claims. If you did then you were someone who shouldnt be anywhere within a mile of any film or digital cameras at all.
What strikes me about your images is how you can edit the digital pictures and they almost look like the medium format film. Obviously the depth is different but how do you match your editing style to the film 🤔🤔 it’s fantastic. Love the video!
play with the colours, add colour to the shadows and highlights, most of the time i add a bit of red to the shadows and some light blue to the highlights to get a "pastel" film look and then lower the contrast because film's dynamic range is better than digital dynamic range
@Bobby Brady which would only ever be a problem if the ultimate goal of photography is to portray everything realistically all the time. Which isn't the case really.
@Bobby Brady I don't think that's what the channel author was referring to.
Doing what he does can be used in a very subtle manner.
"Reasonable accuracy" still allows room for that personal stamp every decent photographer puts into his work.
After all, different film stocks produce different color signatures, some of which are very far off what we deem accurate judged by our own eyes, which is what gives them charm.
Are we to say that film is then unrealistic, even though it's based on chemistry?
If you are referring to young photographers using those cheap looking one-click presets for Lightroom, then I agree. Most of the time it looks like crap, especially because they are applied to everything even to images made in light conditions that aren't favorable for those presets at all.
In other words, they merely apply it without knowing what each of the tools does to an image.
That said, I don't see any of that in the work presented here.
I think in this particular test, you should use equivalent apertura related to the format size. For a full frame 35 mm f 1.4 is equivalent to f 2.8 , the depth of field should be close. But a zoom lens will give a completely different rendition rendering the test useless. May be you your repeat the test wit the right parameters.
Amazing images in this one dude! I need to go shoot some portraits now...
Film : when I want to really think about it. When I would hang the picture on my wall.
Digital : Everything else. Bonus points if I can hang it on my wall.
Dope video. Kill it with both.
To be fair you should compare your Contax 80 f2 with a 50mm f1.2 on the Canon. This will give you the same depth of field.
thats like showing up to a car race and now you want a head start because your car is shit. you buy cameras for a spific look. 80 f2 vs 80f2 that is real world
@@MegaSumo67 Sorry for performing necromancy on your comment, but this is just wrong. While you cannot get anything faster than f1.8 on medium format, you can go waaay faster on fullframe. f1.2, f1, hell, even f0.95.
@@MegaSumo67 yup, that's where you're wrong like other have commented below.
Just smashed the door at the end...Lol...great vedio
The equivalent in 35mm sensor for the 80 2.0 planar on 645 is a 50 1.2 lens. I have made this comparison for myself with Mamiya 645 and 80 1.9 against sony a7r and Canon FDn 50 1.2 L. It is exactly the same BUT :) color negative films are much much better in capturing realistic and pleasing to the eye colors and detail. It was pretty hard editing the digital pictures to get the same result in some cases like back light, strong contrast scenes, sunset light is much better captured on film, digital cameras tend to turn the red-orange colors to yellow pretty easy.
Sorry if this is a stupid question, I am a noob.....but how do you get the film photograph onto the screen here? Do you develop it and then scan it to digital? I assume that would reduce fidelity?
digging the tones from film, but you do a good job in editing bro! Would love to see an editing video/your workflow🙏🏻thank yaa
Prime compared with a Zoom of f4!?!
make not so much sense by portrait comparison....
To be fair, he said at one point that it's the f2.8 version of the 24-70.
Even so, an 80/2 in 645 is equivalent DoF-wise to 50/1.2. Big diff between a 1.2 and 2.8.
A fairer comparison would have been to use the 50/1.2 which is what the 80/2 Planar is comparable to. And Mastin Lab Portra presets for Canon which are calibrated to emulate Frontier scans.
I enjoy your content. Esp your FJ60.
I was immediately disappointed with the lens choice for the EOS R.
Why the boring 24-70?
Otherwise, nice shots.
The 24-70 is a great lens.
@@canturgan it is a great lens for what it is, but there are way better lenses if you seek any character in a lens.
@@Mikri90 When you say character, do you mean flaws. I like flaws, vignetting, distortion etc. But the 24-70 is a professional quality lens.
@@canturgan no, I mean that it has a rendering that isn't just completely flat. As I have said, 24-70 is a fine lens, but it is put against a prime lens in this case. There are many Canon L lenses that would fare much better in this comparison. 85L, 50L, something like that.
@@canturgan and also, because it is a zoom lens, even though it's a professional lens, it will vignette and it will distort more that a prime lens. Being a professional lens does not negate those flaws. I don't have a problem with that just like you, but it has its flaws.
what I've discovered is that as I grow as a photographer and editor the more they both look the same. This seems to back that up to me. They are different looking but could easily be made to look even more alike. That's just consistency I guess. I want to need a nice Hasselblad, but I just don't think I do lol... The only thing I think I really prefer film for still is BW documentary style. It's hard/not fun to reproduce the serendipity and grain of that style of photography.
To many parameters for a fair comparison!
Do you develop the film for yourself or a lab? Then how careful is you or lab?
Flatbed scanner-dedicated filmscanner or pro drumscanning?
What program and parameters for scanning?
My workflow: OM4-Portra-C41-Plustek-Vuescan-Lightroom.
Beautiful model, love it
Curious, why didn't you use a fast prime on the Canon to try to match the depth of the medium format? Using a 50 f1.4 would have been a more compelling comparison IMO.
I agree, just used what I already have. Don’t own a 50 prime
@@SamuelElkinsPhoto Makes sense. Thanks for the reply.
I have a similar setup: 5D mkIV and Pentax 645n. I tend to shoot film more for personal photography like portrait shoots and digital for event & weddings where I'm being paid.
If I'm REALLY wanting to challenge myself for a photoshoot I borrow my friends Pentax 6x7 lol.
Good work, the model looks stellar in these.
they can technically look the same by framing subjects the same way only way to differenciate them is with the amount of detail the medium format gives love this
I really enjoy shooting film but I also enjoy editing photos so I end up changing the color of the film maybe a little bit too much.. what do you think of this? Should I just go digital?
Insane bokeh man! Medium format rocks!
Very cool video, I got my degree in photography shooting and printing film but I can appreciate how far digital has come. I'm still a fan of shooting film and am especially excited by the resolution possibilities of shooting on large format 4x5.
Samuel of you don’t mind me saying. try next time when doing this type of comparison to use an 85 prime 1.4 on the digital and stand back because even though the 80 f2 is field of view of a 50mm it’s got the depth of 80mm plus 2.8 zoom just not going to compete.
Wow 😍 Absolutely Beautiful!!!
I guess DoF difference can be closely matched with 645 on full frame digital though, just shoot an F1.4 prime. Especially adapt a vintage 1.4 prime and manual focus the shot at the same ISO as the film with IBIS off = something much closer to the sharpness of the film shot. If people want similar results on digital we have to actually put the effort in to match the depth of field and optical characteristics and focus conditions.
The big reason I don’t shoot digital is the constant amount of upgrades companies push. Luckily film cameras, to a degree, aren’t made anymore so you can get the best camera for a fraction of the price. For me I only use medium format and I haven’t got a need to upgrade. I love using my mamiya rz67 and 645 afd and I see myself using them far into the future. Long live film !!!
Kodak is ramping up film production massively and Fuji is supposedly coming back too, And ive heard rumors of companies making new film cameras. Because everyone realized finally film is vastly better in almost every way compared to digital, except for convenience.
Film is great, the colors are fantastic, and some of the landmarks and stuff where i live just look amazing on film. Im working to shoot all the landmarks and historical sites in my county. Sot of put out a book on all of them.
@@pilsplease7561 bruh stop sounding like a fan boy, digital beats film for most ppl in most circumstances.
Amazing color in this video!
Not only did you have to depend on your knowledge but you also had to depend on the lab. Searching for a dependable lab that could produce pleasing images on the cheap was a real pain. Now I’m in the lab so I can’t complain.
Loved this video!
really wish you used a prime with a wide aperture and an equivalent focal length to really stack up the difference in dof.
This video is beautifully shot and it’s clear you have the understanding on both formats to make your measured judgments. Thanks for making a quality comparison that can mean something to those asking the question :)
Can a film zoom in indefinitely for the details that pixel sensor can't? Is this possible?
"Amazing photographers can make consistently great work with any sort of camera - no matter the format." - Samuel Elkins. Amazing statement and beautiful informative video. Also, what film do you use specifically?
Sweet comparison man, I agree with your perspective. Also, it was good to meet ya the other day 🤙🏽 keep shootin film!
I learn how to use and understand a camera shooting film /. I went from my first camera a Yashica Electro 35 gs Rangefinder • 35mm Camera. Then Canon A-1, Mamiya RB67 Pros Medium Format w/ Sekor 90mm lens. and now D7200.
I did not really get the point on why you locked the ISO and Zoom of your digital Camera. Aren't swtiching ISO and having high quality zooms one of the advantages of shooting digital? 50mm Prime lens would have been a little better over for comparison instead of the zoom lens. Just my opinion, no hard feelings man. I really liked both of the images, the Zeiss 80mm is easily one of the best lenses out there.
GooooooooooD Job
Great video as always. If I could wish for a video, it would with someone like you, that have the gear and knowledge and eye, to make an even more in-depth one of digital vs film regarding colors. I think the colors of film is the most fascinating of all. Maybe shoot the same photo with both systems and then show the raw output and how you'd go ahead to finalise the film, and then if it's possible to get the same result with the digital one.
If you like imperfection in your photos, why can't you just degrade the digital images to the quality of film?
Maybe its also the option to delete them so they're not always "imperfect" where as film is one shot and thats it
I'm sooo used to square photos with my MF camera (older TLR) so I really had to pay attention to what the caption said lol
I've been wanting to buy a camera but I don't know if I wanted Film or digital. They always say you can delete digital and bla bla bla while Film can't. I also always find myself defending the film, because I wanted to try a new way of capturing things. But i am also scared cuz like im not that great at capturing stuff so I don't know mygahdd help me😭
Yea, you're right. It ain't what ya got, it's the way that ya do it....If you've got the eye you can make great photos with any camera.
Even your videos are graded for the film look!
Thanks for the video.
I’d like to get a digital camera, but I want one that can shoot well in lower light conditions. I’ve seen the Sony A7III, but it’s definitely out of my price range. I’m not sure what else would be good for lower light stuff. I don’t really have any loyalty to any brands since I don’t own a camera myself.
I don’t intend to use photography as my job, but I would like to use some photography within my own mixed media work as a visual artist.
Sam, would you remake this video now with film vs digital medium format.
I've never used a film camera but I got one through a trade, it is the mamiya c220 I've seen alot of good things about the c220, do you know anything about the c220 if you do what do you think
Hi, what an amazing video. Keep up the amazing work! I look forward to your next video.
minute 4.01. what video gear are you using to do this video shot ?
Nice Job!
great comparison! Really digging the color tone of the video and photos!
Could you redo this in comparison with the gfx 100 youve been shooting ?
Your toning for the digital files is great! Any tips or presets you can divulge?
You shot Portra 400 and didn't choose to overexpose it?
skintones on medium was very nice
Fantastic video Sam, I really like your photo style
This is great. I learned a lot today. Thank you.
“The contact 645 is heavy to hold “
Rz67 users: -_-
Love this! It’s cool to see the comparisons! Also what backpack is that?
Love the pacing of this video. Great vibes and good info. Craze
Hey, great video man, I really enjoyed this. I loved shooting medium format back in my film days but that was a very long time ago. I am going to have to pick it back up again. It looks like you had a lot of fun. I sometimes shoot 35mm film just for fun, but its not like the joy of medium format. How do you develop and scan your medium format negs into your digital workflow? would love to know. Cheers
Really good video man! Great job with the posing
Could you do this with the gfx 50r and film ?
Bird is the Name that’s what i was thinking.
Do you feel like when you use medium format you become more creative?
for some time i’ve had this feeling that because really great photographers shoot film, my photos shot with digital camera are pure trash and will never be as good as they would be on film. I feel like my photos look like a 2 year old with some old phone shot them. How to overcame that feeling? Is shooting film really superior to shooting digital (because it’s harder- you can’t see your photos instantly and you have to actually know something about photography to shoot film)?
"Is shooting film really superior to shooting digital" no and don't let the fanboys tell you otherwise. pictures are pictures in the end. and in most cases, digital is better unless you just want to burn money on film gear and development etc. you can buy a used good digital camera, a vintage lens and start taking photos with lots of flaws all for under 1000 bucks. depending on the gear you can probably add a more clinically perfect modern lens too and get the best of both worlds
Great info and Jess is gorgeous.
When you take a picture with a flim camera You have to select manual whitebalance mode for it to have the quality of a film camera.
Eos r has a base iso of 100, shooting 400 is like underxposing 100 iso film by 2 stops
yeah man, also the cost. MF cameras are off the charts... also the lens play a huuuuuuuge roll here. Love the video tho! can't believe anyone would see these images and not say the MF ones are 1-0000000000000000 times better
A Contax camera and 80/2 Planar are about $3k, maybe a tad more. If you part it out, the price pretty much splits evenly between the Contax body and Zeiss 80/2. Price that against a Nikon D850 or a nice Sony plus lens. It’s actually not that over the top expensive.
Yeah, its cool on both
I see no difference between the two. In most cases now, shooting film for RUclips is the photographers way of saying ‘hey look at me, I’m so cool, I’m shooting film, that makes me such a better photographer than anyone else’
Bobby Brady Yes resolution is better obviously but that doesn’t necessarily make it better. Some people like the colours and grain of film. The look of film is what defined photography for over 100 years.
@@teleaddict23 Heres the truth, Digital and FIlm photography have places in the world, they are both useful for different reasons and neither obsoletes the other except that film will outlast digital in the end.
I meet in the middle by shooting digital on vintage manual lenses.
645 has little difference with 35mm, try 6x7.
645 is still three times the surface of a 35mm negative
Great work Sam!
Hey Sam! Suggestions on a medium format camera for a first time medium format shooter?
Hi there! Try pentax 645 n / n ii which is a good af medium format camera, joy to shoot it. Portable, comparatively fresh, easy to handle and almost perfect lens quality.
Sam! What presets do you use to edit both your digital and film images? The tones, the skin, beautiful!
This woman is simply gorgeous.
what’s the bag?
Do you edit your analog shots?
Great stuff.
WHY do all the guys from Wix have to be so super-hyper-mega-uber CHIPPER and HAPPY?
MF to FF conversions.
645 = .62
6x6 = .55
6x7 = 0.5
6x8 = .45
6x9 = .43
Shooting f2 x .62 = f1.24 (full frame)
Shooting 50mm x .62 = 31mm (full frame)
The real difference between medium format film or digital and 35mm or full frame digital or film is simply that medium format can allow you to be closer to your subject and attain greater detail by being closer, if all other factors are equal which they won't be but in a vacuum medium format film or digital will have slightly more detail by being physically closer to the subject and being able to get the same or similar field/angle of view.
Medium format film resolves higher quality detail even when comparing digital FF to a certain point. Technically speaking modern 35mm lenses have surpassed medium format film lenses due to modern lens coatings and optical design.
Currently Hasselblad, Phase One, Pentax and Fuji MF have the best cameras and lenses regarding digital image quality. They have more pixels and a higher pixel pitch than there 35mm counterparts. Add that you can get closer to your subject and still have the same frame.
All this doesn't mean a thing unless you're pixel peeping or printing insanely larger prints on insanely good printers. Otherwise what's the point? The avg. monitor is still 1080p, we're only just getting into 4k which is only 8.3mp and 8k is 33mp our eyes are weird we can only focus on a certain portion of our field of view at a time, everything else is blurred, example look at your cellphone the try to while still on your phone screen look outside your focus, your eyes are blurred outside of your focus point. So 100mp is possibly the limit of our eyes even if we can technically see over 500mp.
And I'm rambling.
Unless you're cropping in massively or preserving history through insane detail there's no point in going beyond 12mp which gives you just enough to adjust framing and lens distortion in post. If you need more than 12mp something is seriously wrong with the shooter and not the camera.
Maybe it will be more fair to full frame if you use a 50mm 1.4 or 1.2
Great video! Thanks!
You mentioned using f2.8 with the digital camera. What aperture did you use on the Zeiss/Contax?
Great video, solid comparison. Wish film was cheaper, I'd shoot it exclusively. Digital just so damn convenient. #FilmForever
imma need that @ chief
Not a fair comparison. The cameras should have used the same lenses. I shoot film for the image quality, especially in B&W, where digital looks pretty bad compared to film. I suspect what he is showing us are film scans too, not actual prints. Your negative is simply your starting point, everything really happens in the darkroom. Scanning film is fine for some things, but don't expect it to come anywhere near the quality of a well made print out of a darkroom.
Well, I think you should be comparing at the same f stop. Obviously, if one is f/2.8 and the other f/1.2 equivalent, you will see a difference. I happen to have a Pentax f/1.2 for a 35mm film. And it makes a difference, until you put an f/1.2 canon lens on the canon. I love my pentax because it's so compact compared to a similarly powerful digital setup. It fits into the glove box. And quite cheap. And doesn't run out of batteries. I'm still waiting for a serious reason why film is better. Nostalgia.
hey can you make a video about cheap film, like kodak colorplus, and fujifilm c200
Hi Sam, just a heads up. The Instagram handle of Jess in the video description is missing another “_” Thanks!
Really should of been medium format film vs medium format digital for a better comparison
Do you think that film factory will stop making films in the future? Let me know please.
dope bro
Cool video