Medium Format Film vs Digital Comparison
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 фев 2020
- A little comparison between the GFX50r and the RZ67
Thank you to Squarespace for sponsoring this video, if you'd like to try out their service you can do so here: squarespace.com/negativefeedback/
Aria:
/ ariamark
www.gofundme.com/f/kalidou
Support us on Patreon: / negativefeedback
Video recorded on Sony A6500
Music by Chris Punsalan: / chrispunsalantv
Social Media:
/ negativefb
/ negativefb
George:
/ gmuncey
/ g_muncey
www.georgemuncey.com/
The memes in this are stronger than someone carrying a mamiya RZ67
The ultimate forbidden fruit: Digital medium format.
It's not forbidden, just wallet-crushing.
🤯🤯
@@MikeLikesChannel Kinda, but I got around that by buying a used Pentax 645z a while ago. I'm shooting studio portraits on a budget, with the said Pentax and an EOS 5D Classic with a 50mm 1.4 Leica R-Summilux. That's enough for my kinda workflow and doesn't break the bank
digital large format!
You need a high-end Workstation for processing your photos.
I'm curious what the GFX photos would look like if you adapted the Mamiya glass to the GFX body. Might be a fun experiment.
I just commented this before reading the rest of the comments lol I've seen 35mm lenses on the fuji and many of them cover sensor with little vigneting... awesome days for digital
Rarely seen people do that, probably because the RB/RZ are using bellow to focus, and adapt that is heavy.
@@mjf4186 i would try the 645 ones tho (mamiya, pentax, zeiss) the Fuji sensor is not that Big anyways
Like all the others ! Sharp clean and boring !
I did this using a Cambo 35 Ultima D - adapted by Cambo for my GFX with absolutely mindblowing results - better than the Fuji Copal lenses - I knew it would work because I shot fashion on RZ for ten years. Now I just use GFX and stock GX lenses for ease of use and don't do studio work anymore - and I use the mini zoom at that - now Fuji are concentrating a bit harder in their WR Primes -I may expand a little
honestly i've stopped wasting money on film for most of my portrait or street work. vintage lenses on my xpro2 gives tons of character, still slows me down with manual focus, and saves my bank account. I use film sparingly now for special occasions. with the prices of some films becoming an absolute fucking joke, it just makes sense for me. Kodak Colorplus 200 used to be $17 for a 5 pack just last summer. It's going for $40 now (amazon US) LOL. good grief.. I apologize for the rant. I do love your channel. cheers m8
Mike Francis what lenses are your favs?
this is so right
Hi Mike, I shoot with xt2 and was curious which vintage lenses you use for your portrait work and what adapter? Was thinking about getting some vintage lenses myself. Thank you.
zsofianemes Canon fd 50 1.4 especially for studio work. It has a nice look especially shot around 2.8. The Minolta Rokkor lenses are packed with character (50mm 1.2, 55 1.7, 58 1.4) One thing to keep in mind is that Fuji XF lenses are so ridiculously sharp that it makes no senses to compare these vintage lenses to them. What these lenses will give is different kinds of bokeh, sharp optics but not clinical. CA shot wide open, some less than others. Play around with them and get a feel. Tons of possibilities. On a side not from vintage, a great “new” lens with tons of character and less than perfect optics is the 7artisans 35mm 1.2. I only shoot it wide open and depending on the subject distance, gives you a nice 3d pop. Super cheap too! Lens flares for days. Google Jonas Rask photography. He has tons of write ups on “vintage-ing” his Fuji cameras.
Danijel Bogdanic Canon FD glass like the 50 1.4 is cheap and can be adapted with a cheap fx-fd adapter found on amazon. Minolta Rokkor 58 1.4 is sex and magic for portraits as well. Also don’t sleep on the 7artisans 35 1.2. Check this blog out. Talks all about vintage glass on Fuji. jonasraskphotography.com/2016/02/16/x-pro2-vintaged/
Try adding a pro mist filter to the Fujifilm lens to take away a bit of the digital sharpness. Could even get a warming one depending on the look you’re going for.
Michael yeah that’s a good idea
Or better yet, just reduce sharpening in post.
@@Biker_Gremling ehh, diffusion filters will give it more "character" whereas reducing sharpness on the entire image by dropping clarity or texture starts to give it a weird creamy look. but to each his own.
“How am I supposed to get my nutrients?”
Matt Day apparently not a fan of film nutrients.
Noone:
George: “got to use the strapon”
Therapist: George hiding inside a swan tent in the lake isn't real and can't hurt you
*George hiding inside a swan tent in the lake:* 0:22
For medium format, I shoot with a GFX 50R and a pair of 6x6 film cameras. After I spent a few minutes setting up the 50R to my liking and creating a few custom profiles, I actually don't find myself going into the menus, which allows me to be as present in my photography as I am with my film cameras. I digitize my film negatives with a camera on a copy stand, so editing the negatives for print isn't terribly different -- I have a starting "look" depending on the film or the profile I used, and I make adjustments from there. It's just that with the 50R, I have a lot more info to work with, which allows me to crop in ways I can't with film. Neither approach is better, per se, just different paths I can take towards a final image.
I was going to post something similar. Might just go back to his being out of digital for a while, but shooting digital can be as "simple" as shooting film. I don't have a MF digi, so I can't comment directly on functionality, but I do have a Nikon D810 and Nikon F100 and have the D810 set up to shoot virtually identaclly to my F100. Major difference is that I can change the ISO shot to shot. And, since I can change the ISO without going into the menus, I almost never use the menus. I set up a flat RAW profile and a couple usability tweaks and all but never go into the menus.
As an aside, you seem to be underutilizing your medium format film when digitizing it. Depends, of course, on the film stock, developing, and the lens, but if you're getting less resolution than your Fuji, you're likely leaving at least half of the resolution on the table. My best guess, based on my own experiences with digitizing film, is that 6x6 should be in the 100~150 megapixel range. I acheive that sort of resolution when I need it by shooting tighter and stitching multiple frames in post.
I prefer the film shots too, but with Fujifilm 110/2 and a few minutes or a good preset in Capture One the result would likely be more or less indistinguishable
"i'm so analog now that digital is hard for me..."
Agree
"I sold my last digital camera"
Posts digital video to youtube.
lol
The day an analog internet photo / video sharing site is introduced, I'll start my own channel ;)
@@markuslarjomaa3122 Oxymoron, but there's a good idea ;)
all his videos are super 16 and scanned directly into youtube 😭
🤣 hahahaha
I shoot both, but can't beat the process of shooting film!
Bobby Brady how so?
Bobby Brady fair enough, I understand but everything is subjective. Time I’ve enjoyed shooting film is not considered wasted time for me
@Bobby Brady I think most of the renewed interest in film photography involves the process. Most new people shooting film are amatures, not professionals. So, I think enjoying the process is actually an important point to many people. If you're doing it for the art, taking as many exposures as possible isn't really the goal.
There are only two or three things that I do not enjoy about digital, the lack of physical involvement, the fidgetiness of digital cameras with all their options, and the excitement about getting your film back, all of which are fixable.
Fixed the the first issue by shooting all manual. There is something about the manual handling of the camera that makes me feel involved versus not involved in photography. This was the greatest difference in being happy with shooting digital after converting from film.
Fidgetiness is fixable by choice of camera. Here Fuji and Leica rule because they tend to give you direct access to the essentials in the exposure triangle (plus ISO).
The excitement of getting your film back can be fixed by self-control. First, don't overshoot. Be mindful. Easier said than done. Second, don't chimp and put your images away for a while before looking at them. It also tends to result in a much more realistic assessment of image quality.
Oh, and one independent reason for digital. If you shoot all manual on digital, you tend to learn a lot faster than on film because you tend to shoot a lot more. That's solely due to the difference in cost.
One thing I think that stands out with film is the dynamic range. I think transitions between colors and light and shadow are much more pleasing with film. There just always seems to be more information in the shadows.
The GFX is a mirrorless, could you use the RZ lens with an adapter on the GFX and make a video about it?
loved this video, george. super interesting to see you shooting digital. have you ever shot it on this channel elsewise?
metal fingers the only time before was a Leica m10 vs m6 video
this was a very cool to share. thank you so much for the experimentation
Thanks for watching
Awesome Vid. What lense were you using on the Fuji? I didn't pick that up
Hi, there, I bought 3 copies of Negative Feedback Issue 03 on 2017.09.19 (Order #3877) and I never get package information or any feedback. Can you explain how these things happen? Thank you.
This was tremendously helpful! Thanks so much for taking time to do a direct side-by-side comparison.
Small question : What background is it (brand) ?
I have also abandoned digital, yesterday got myself my first medium format Yashica 124G and just enjoying the process of a film 🙂
My first medium format as well, it's traveled with me across the country a few times and fits my style quiet well. The optics are good enough I don't feel the need to upgrade - all about the subject and light. Enjoy!
I'm looking to buy one myself also. Where did u get yours?
@@koltinsullivan Yes, it is not too big or heavy, great optics for the price and you just have to love viewfinder 🙂
@@barrydduggan I bought it from a friend. Try maybe at Kamerastore from Finland, they are great
Koltin Sullivan I have the 124 non g , it’s great. Fairly compact, looks cool (to me). I struggle with good focus though.
For the same field of view, medium format won't have more compression than smaller formats despite the longer focal length. Compression depends on field of view not focal length.
I was about to write the same. For years I thought it would compress the perspective until someone showed me a side by side. My mind was safely blown.
The overall image still changes, you get more spacial separation with a bigger sensor. So actually less compression I would say. The image won't stay the same. Increase the sensor size and you will notice. That's why large format just has a certain look to it.
@@luca_hc_gruber Take a look at this. it may change your mind.yedlin.net/lens_blur.html
If you ray trace every point in the image for both formats, they are exactly the same. It's a fact. Any other attributes are more likely to be due to the lens characteristics, such as edge sharpness or distortion of some kind. You can even replicate the exact depth of field if you can find a lens that will correlate on each format.
finally someone pointed that out
this myth about "medium format look" is ridiculous
Add to that that medium format lenses are generally slower.
What software did you use for the Raw conversion? I agree with the lens being the critical issue. I use a Sony A7 Mk2 with old C/Y Zeiss lenses, and the look is almost exactly the same as what I get with the same lenses and a Contax film camera.
I loved the video! What color backdrop is this?
What was the setup of the 50r? Plus, I assume you did post-processing on RAW files?
Nice test George, loved it. Thx for sharing with us. That 'boxing' photo is simply amazing !!! Great job both of you. Grtzz
George at a restaurant to digest a good photo book:
I would like a nice photo book!
Waiter: Would like a roll of expired kodak with that?
....
Great video, great seeing Aria again and also you of course :)
Thanks again for a great video and photography! In my opinion, the film results have more soul. I guess it's a matter of personal preference. It does confirm that film still plays an important role in photography.
I just totally love that shot at 6:42 :)
But also I always love the editing style and information contained in your videos. Great work.
What’s the name of the song at the beginning?
What backdrop did you use?
Love the flash you added on at the end the photos look great!
Thanks for the comparison...the images are quite nice. I do have to call out one of my pet peeves: a longer focal length does not result in more compression..this is a misunderstood myth that is extremely prevalent. Compression / perspective is determined completely by your position and relation between the camera / subject and background, and nothing else. If you stand in the same spot, and shoot an 80mm lens at f/2.8 on 645, a 50mm lens at f/1.7 on 35mm and a 33mm lens at f/1.1 on APS-C, the resulting images will look essentially identical from a perspective and depth of field standpoint. The reason people think longer focal lengths increase compression is because they back up and use a longer focal length to frame the shot the same....but the backing up is what has changed the perspective and led to a different level of compression. This can be very easily tested by shooting a shot at, say, 100mm, then putting a 50mm lens on and taking a shot from the same position and cropping. (for the best comparison, shoot at a 2 stop wider aperture on the 50mm for the same depth of field). You will see the images will appear identical, save for individual lens characteristics.
I just wanna constantly hug Aria, such a sunshine
Really interesting video!!
I would to know how much time you spend to edit film scan VS digital photo. I really like your color and textures on digital.
So much of it is about grading. Whilst scanning the film goes through a natural grading process. You can easily get the digital image to a similar look through a decent grade
George, sold his digital cameras 3 years ago, does youtube videos on Arriflex
Really fun comparison to watch! I appreciate both but prefer the simplicity and loveliness of film.
A treat to see the two of you together [Aria].It was fun: the banter. Even better when you take turns making images [one hour portrait challenge].
👍❤️
Would like to see the images side-by-side to compare. And the same aspect ratio for the images. Film has a different look - no question.
You;'re right about the menus - cameras designed by engineers with no User Experience testing. Reminds me of the Photos+++ program. Just add more. But less is more [Mies van de Rohe]. As you said. Allows you to focus.
Great video! I happen to have the GFX 50s and by far my favourite lens is the mamiya 80 1.9. It has that ”softness” and character that the fuji lenses miss. I do still love the fuji lenses for their insane quality but you can adapt pretty much any lens on to the gfx. For example some of the Minolta rokkor lenses cover the whole sensor and they have tons of character. I highly recommend you to try some old adapted lenses on the gfx if you still have the oppoturnity. It ”might” change you view a bit.
You need to do a podcast, I could listen to your voice all day.
Anyone knows which Salomon model is George wearing? 4:05
N Mencía xt-6
@@NegativeFeedback thanks, they look amazing. Seems nearly impossible to get them in the nice color :(
Recommend looking at capture one pro and mastin labs. They have amazing portra/fuji emulation packs.
I think a few things could be done here to make these images a lot closer.
1) Grade the digital file to match the film stock - it's not much work but it's pretty easy to color match and set the white and block point to match the film scans. I see much higher saturation and darker blacks in the digital shots. Overall it's cooler white balance for sure. Warm it up a touch, and lift the black slightly and the images will look close with a touch of grain added.
2) The Depth of Field on the film camera is narrower. You can see this in a couple of shots and this helps to create that softness. I'd try to match the DoF and use a manual focus lens on the 50r and again this will make them look similar.
3) Try a very weak mist filter. This can help take the very slight digital edge off and mimic some of the tonal qualities/roll off/halation of film.
Matching the lens and slapping a filter on is pretty easy and will get you 90% of the way there but to really come close to matching film you need to color grade it. It is kind of worth that effort when you consider you can get a very similar look and shoot infinite shots vs the economics of film. But yea... I still shoot film as well so :D
Hi, what an incredible video. Keep up the excellent work! I look forward to your next video.
You hit the nail on the head in identifying the differing sensor sizes as making the difference. "There is no replacement for displacement", as they say in the car world, but perhaps it can also be used in the photography world. In defence of Fujifilm, I recall clearly one of the launches of a GFX, perhaps it was the GFX50r, where one of the top men at Fuji was asked what he called he sensor size. He said he preferred to call it 'Super35', rather than medium format. It's there on youtube, but either the marketing men, or salesmen, or RUclips jocks (no offence intended), decided it would be an easier sell as 'medium format' and so have fronted it out ever since. I'm guessing the guy who called it 'Super35' has been ushered back to the boardroom, never to see the light of day again, or at least not a press launch. I'm guessing once real medium format size digital (they are actually analogue, but that's another story) sensors become commercially viable, the current sensor used by Fuji and others will be seen as some kind of stepping stone. That was a good comparison, thanks.
Great comparison thanks for this. One thing I can say is the colors on the digital are much more accurate and pleasing. That's one reason I don't shoot too much color film anymore the colors are sometimes hit and miss but I do find I prefer the texture and grain of black and white film than my digital bw.
I actually tend to disagree with that kinda, film still produces more natural-looking skin tones, although you can do lots in post on digital
@@eesafredericks2122 and i disagree with that, film has a certain look to it and its definitely not always natural or pleasing. with digital you dont need to fuss with different films, you just adjust your white balance which isnt hard and boom, accurate colors of skins.
@@Grumpygrumpo 😂😂What are you even talking about.
Whilst George’s power pose provides perfect photos, it also removes any future possibility of having children.
I used to shoot portraits exclusively with RB67 and it was a fabulous camera. Perfect for studio use.
Hey George! Is Negative Feedback ever going to do a photography walk or meet up or something like that in London?
6:38 song? i need it pls :(
No surprise with your observations. In terms of the way the lenses render detail I get the impression that most people using the GFX are doing technical and or product photos rather then portraits hence the clinical razor sharp detail.
I'd love to see a comparison of 6x7 film vs. a digital back like an IQ140 both on the RZ67...
the rz is a 6x7 and the gfx is not even a 6x45 size sensor ....so dont think you will have less depht of field with some 2.8 aperture...youd rather shoot fullframe with a canon 50mm 1.2 or a sigma 35mm 1.2....even a 55mm zeiss 1.8 would have less depht of field than an 2.8 multiply by 0.79 (aka crop factor) = f2.2.... even your 6x7 cant achieve the super shallow depth of field you are talking about...considering the fastest mamiya 6x7 lens is a f2.8 multiply by the crop factor of 0.5 give you a f stop of 1.4 .....and there is no compression at all with a longer lens since the film or sensor is wider ...a 110 2.8 is basically a 55 1.4 on your 6x7
this comment gave me an aneurysm trying to read it
@@nikolicious9739 its basic photography stuff
interesting.
Crazy this just came out. I literally just finished a portrait shoot using both of these cameras at same time for reasons of comparison!
I hope you didn't use the 63mm lens :). I just posted a comment saying that I find it very annoying that everyone is using this lens when comparing the GFX. I think it's the blandest lens that you can fit on this camera
We dont trust you with the know-how of such a precious Fuji-system, George!
I think that "character" you get in film vs digital is that with film, you photograph the air, the light, between you and your subject. Digital seems to flatten atmosphere. Film looks and feels like a memory.
That is... BS.
Omg film is not mystical! At the end of the day film records light, so do digital cameras. There is no ‘spirit capture’ going on.
you know how light works? cuz that's not how it works
I completely agree with the lens making a lot of the issues between digital and film more apparent. The character of film and the lens paired with it can change how it looks and a lot of time if you use vintage lenses on a new film camera you get closer to that feel. The digital cameras aren’t too hard to use after using one for a day or two but you nailed it. Use what you know how to because connecting with the subject should always be number one
I really like this comparison. I switch a lot between my Mamiya 7, Rz67 and Nikon z7, and I think I can really get what I want now out of digital. But you're definitely right, the RZ renders sooo nicely, and it's hard to not carry it around with me - I carried it around in Berlin when I went last! Also while you're there - definitely check out das hotel in Kreuzberg, its such a cool dive bar. Enjoy the trip!
Love this
I'd say the big difference in the images that I'm seeing is the microcontrast, or edge contrast or local contrast, I've heard it called all three. Comes down the coatings in the lens as much as anything. Back when I shot a lot of film, there were also developers (black and white only) that could be used to increase this a bit, due to reduced Sodium Sulfite content (mostly). Now I just shoot digital. Modern lenses.
You should try the fuji with a black mist filter to cut the sharpness.
On shoots I love to use my digital camera for warming up my subject to the camera/establishing a workflow with them, reviewing the images on a large TV so I can fine tune every detail before bringing out my RZ67. With my Coolscan 8000, the RZ gets me ~100MP files for much cheaper than renting a 100MP camera would cost for the amount of images I’m trying to make. Though I’m sure 100MP digital is “sharper”, the grain enlarges gracefully to make it truly 100MP in terms of printing capability IMO. The future of digital medium format is rather exciting though, and I’m waiting on Fuji’s 80mm and either a 6k 100MP body or 10k 150MP body to jump on the system. Though, until I can get my hands on an 8x10 digital camera I can’t picture my photography practice without film.
Two things:
1. I think the GFX's sensor is more comparable to a 6x4.5 film camera.
2. What if you put a black pro mist filter 1/4 or 1/2 on the GFX to soften it up?
Can you do same compairing but use same film stocks that you use film simulations in fuji digital? That would be very interesting! Good video.
i almost gto a gfx but it doesnt seem like the pictures look like medium format to me they still just looks close to a full frame photo
Some will say those portraits are weird. I say they're brilliant! Good work!
That last black and white set was awesome
It's not so hard to handle a Fuji camera, ANY Fuji camera after a while, and once you set up everything to your likening; those cameras are the closest thing you'll ever get to film cameras while shooting digital, at least in my mind.
And you CAN get a picture with it which strongly resembles a film photograph; you should simply use a vintage lens on it.
Moreover, there IS at least one native fast lens that can give you shallow DOF on the GFX system, and that's a chinese Mitakon 65mm f1,4. Cheers.
I’ve definitely been struggling with finding a good digital camera/lens pairing that isn’t unrealistically sharp... or sterile in a way. I’ll always grab my Mamiya first but there are days where I don’t want to lug the big boi around.
get a vintage lens. now you'll get good quality photos with lots of "character"
I need like a 4hrs long podcast, with the 2 of them in it, just to listen to their nice accent:D
Could you do the same, but with landscapes?x
Phase One cameras are the only to come close to 645 in sensor size and being able to give you a optical look to challenge it (DOF wise). I can go into a long rant into film and why I feel people prefer it and why in most ways digital is superior. Right now I believe Fujifilm is the closest experience you can get to shooting film not just in camera operation but also look and that has to do a lot with their 80+ years of R&D. I personally can't wait for the first affordable 4x5 digital camera.
interesting
Good luck getting 6x9 with digital
Funny how you say the digital camera is confusing but you find changing rolls of film in the Mamiya perfectly normal. I bet if you give someone both cameras, that person will first go online to find out how to load film in the camera and figure out how to meter :). Also one thing that I find very annoying is that everyone is testing the GFX with the 63mm lens. That combo is nowhere close in rendering to a 6x7. I would try some adapted lenses like Canon 85mm 1.2 or Mitakon 65mm 1.4, or even the Fuji 110mm f2. I think the 63mm is the blandest lens for GFX, equivalent to a 50mm f2
Clinical I think is an apt word for digital. A lot of room for manipulation and definitely some sharpness and pop but I just don't have much fun when shooting digital. Especially for black and white when I can go from taking the shot to making a print without touching a computer. I really really like that. I have the luxury though as I don't do it for a living. But film is just sooooo much more enjoyable for me. For a lot of reasons but among them more recently is using a Yashica Mat TLR. Such a fun camera to use with no equivalent in the digital space.
Great vid as usual.. but if it’s about glass.. seek out a lens converter and get your manual juices flowing. I have the gfx 50r and love it.. maybe I need to go back to film for a bit 🤔 let’s go On a photo walk when you’re in London Town next.
To me it looks like the digital images are straight out of camera and the film images might have had some color adjustments (mainly added warmth) made which is fine except it's not really a fair comparison. I'd like to see what the images look like side to side after spending some time editing both to taste. The softness of the 6x7 is kind of surprising tbh - my Mamiya 7 is every bit as sharp as digital.
Genuinely thought you'd used 2 completely different apertures. Then again digital does tend to be sharper and have less imperfections, and like you said, the RZ67 is like a 30% bigger format so that might have a decent affect on the DOF.
Gonna have to try the power pose soon 🏋️♀️
There was a B/W film I used years ago that had a mint flavour to the seal. Don’t think that’s made anymore.
Gordon Moat Agfa film had peppermint flavour
what about the digital back
was your film a bit underexposed?
zapallalla yes! At least one stop. This muddy blacks don’t lie...
@@calangolima for sure they could have had more contrast
Underexposed film = Character
Myekal Benham hahahaha! In a comparison?
Myekal Benham new ”overexpose portra by two stops” :D
the shaved head looks so much better on you, what a man!
Adapt the MF lenses to the Fuji and see where you get.
Maybe using a lens filter for the digital could give it the fuzzier/softer look captured with the RZ
You should try some film lenses on the camera. It's fun and renders things differently
Great comparison: I shoot Fuji Xt3 for mainly everything from portraits to sports, surfing, whatever. I also have a Hasselblad 500CM for more artsy situations. I was considering getting a used Pentax 67ii because I wanted the larger 6x7 negative and that specific look however "yes" film is getting pretty $$ so I don't shoot THAT much of it. I already have a 6x6 format camera which I can always shoot and crop to 645. After pricing some cameras out though for NOT much more $$ a used GFX50r and lens is not that much more than a flawless 67ii. Plus the ability to immediately review images, use film simulators and the resolution is just insane.
Sure even a 645 negative is larger than the GFXs sensor but the GFX IMO will have much more flexibility for editing and in detail for cropping in than film. Heck I mean a 6x7 negative is WAY larger than even a Phase One IQ4 sensor at 150mp but you can not deny the detail and pure resolution of those files.
It's a hard decision because I do like shooting slower with film but I like the convenience of digital. I think with the GFX50s/r it's more usable in paid work.
What are your opinions on Cian Moore?
✂️ thank you!
I ran a comparison of a D300 with AI glass against a Rollie with Velvia. It doesn't matter how many times I came back to it, the D300 spanked the Rollei.
You should try to adapt the rz lens on the fuji
Definitely worth trying
@@NegativeFeedback No focus unless the adapter has a helicoid. But mount a Hasselblad lens, my studio partner had the Fuji and liked the Zeiss look much better.
If you can, test it again with a Mitakon Speedmaster 65mm or 85mm.
The rendering should be what you are missing.
Haven't shot digital in ages ! Don't miss it one bit.
Thankfully film pays all the bills now.
As I’m getting back into film (no thanks to channels like this 😏), I’m finding digital to...crisp or as you put it, clinical looking.
GFX 50R price is still 7k without a lens in Australia!
Totally agree that film is a more gentle image. Nice comparison
celluloid offers a visual quality that digital simply cannot match
Today on "Two Cute Boys"