Which is Better // 35mm vs 120 Film with Fuji 400H
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 окт 2024
- Film Supply Club - filmsupply.club
Follow us on Instagram: / filmsupplyclub
--- GEAR LIST ----
Best Prices on Film - filmsupply.club
Shop Cameras: filmsupply.clu...
Favorite Light Meter - bit.ly/35dufwK
Clip for Light Meter - amzn.to/2ImjAmL
Brass Shutter Release Button:bit.ly/3bEgjwK
---------------------
It's the age old question of which is better? 120 vs 35mm film. And really it doesn't come down to which is better but more of a comparison of the two and why you would use one over the other.
For instance, a 35mm camera is smaller, easier to carry with you, can fit in a purse, a small bag or even a pocket, depending on the camera. While a medium format camera is usually quite large and often heavy. Way more difficult to carry around with you.
Maybe you want more grain or grit in your images and a 35mm frame might offer that to you. Or the dimensions of the photograph. A frame shot on 35mm is the same proportions as a 4x6 photo. While if you're looking to print something 4x6 shot on a medium format camera, part of the image will need to be cropped.
There is something about the larger film plane on a medium format negative in comparison to the 35mm neg. There is less grain and more clarity. In this video, Braedon is using a very pro camera for the medium format, the Contax 645 camera with the 80mm F2.0 lens. For the 35mm camera, the Canon AE-1 is more of an amateur camera.
All of the photos were shot on Fujifilm 400H. Which images do you prefer?
ok so to me it seemed that the 35mm rendered a bit warmer, my favorite was of course 120. one of the reasons is i do love how Zeiss lenses render color. it would be interesting to see 35mm with a Zeiss 50mm vs the Zeiss of the Contax. both mediums were great, thanks for sharing.
It's totally not a fair comparison with that Zeiss lens on the Contax but in comparison to focal lengths, an 80mm on medium format is close to what a 50mm on 35mm so we went with that. I should have shot more of a pro level 35mm vs the AE-1 but used that camera because it's more accessible to more people. Showing that a $250 set up doesn't do all that bad against a $4000 setup. Appreciate you taking the time to leave your comment.
Yeah, I felt the same: would have been nice to equalize the glass; if shooting a Contax 645, which is not your everyday mf with that astounding f/2 Planar, then shoot a 35mm with equally good glass, a Canon 50/1.2 or a Contax 50/1.4 Planar. But I get it-you shot what you had available.
When models tell you that it was the most fun shoot they ever had, you know you’ve done a good job.👍🏾😷
Totally agree. Very affirming
This video didn’t really settle any kind of debate for me:
1. As per their video description, the Contax is a “very pro” camera while the Canon is more of an “amateur” one. What? They couldn’t find a pro 35mm film camera for the comparison? That would have made more sense.
2. Many of his Canon shots appear to be out of focus. Like they are back-focused.
3. He seems to be inconsistent with the aperture on the Canon. Most of the time it looks stopped down (f3.2 or higher f-stop). I shoot (digital) a lot with a 35mm lens at f2 and there’s more separation than most of his images. Makes no sense if he’s shooting that Contax wide open (or close to it) while stopping down on the Canon.
4. His framing is inconsistent. Some of the shots he frames tighter on the Contax which results in more background separation. Looks more pleasing in busy or uninteresting backgrounds.
What I said! Lmao get a Leica Summicron, vs Contax 645
there is nothing like “very pro” “amateur” when related to film photography. all the quality of the shots come from the lens and film only. the camera body only adds more or less settings to shoot not quality or sharpness. film is not digital photography that requires amazing sensors, the film is the sensor. The real comparison you should have asked was lens vs lens
This channel will be the main thing people watch to get into film or to understand more of it
Yay!!! It's 4pm here in the UK...I've just made a coffee and you've uploaded a new video. :)
Enjoy that coffee and hope you like the vid!
Great comparison, and really enjoyed the Polaroid cameo in there 😄. The description says it was the 80mm on the 645, but curious what was on the AE-1? Looks like it might be a 50mm of some kind.
Good eye! On the AE-1 it was Canon's 50mm F1.8 FD lens. And glad you liked the Polaroid in there. It's so fun shooting with the SX-70
Great video and comparison. I love the colours and sharpness from Fuji 400h. What cameras and lenses did you use for the comparison?
Thanks tons. The medium format is the Contax 645 camera with an 80mm Carl Zeiss lens. The 35mm camera is the Canon AE-1 with a 50mm F1.8 Canon lens
imo the biggest difference and why i use medium is since im not into portraits i love using medium format for landscape since i can use longer focal lenses and still be able to capture the same image as when using a full format say with a wider lens, i also like how this then creates the same image from the same standing point but with the objects in the scenery apearing closer rather than so distant and spread out like with a wide lens on full format
Try wide angle portraits with shallow depth of field (use ND filter and a less sensitive film), this is where the larger format truly shines. If you’re using long lenses and stop it down, you are missing out on the most fun part
Such good vibes! Really enjoyed this!
There’s always money in the banana stand.
Regretted watching the vid but this comment saved it.
120 always. Overexposing 400h 2 stops is the sweet spot for me.
Did you shoot the film at box speed?
Wondering that too, the colors for the 120 400h are absolutely killer
It was rated at 200, and the bulb was pulled in on the meter so it was somewhere between a stop and 2 stops over exposed.
@@FilmSupplyClub thanks!
Such an amazing film. Love the colors. Thanks for sharing.
I love the photos in their second outfits
thanks. Outfit #2 was our fave as well.
Hi, do you really think the 400 Iso film was the right choice here for this sunny day ? Differences could be really less with a Portra 160 for example. I'm scanning my 35mm Portra 160 at 40MP with a Sony Alpha 7 R IV and I can't see any grain. But the gears here are a Canon Eos-1V with greatest lenses (135mm F2 for example) or Leica M7. When you shoot film, the first step is to make the right choice for the film, don't you think so ?
120 Is definitely better, the dynamic range is wider in it and colors are far less yellower, wonderful shoots
totally agree. And thanks tons!
It's a given that medium format will outshine 35mm in overall quality in almost every situation. I would have liked to seen more editorial content eluding to this fact or something to challenge this assertion in order to determine "which is better". With this in mind, the title of this video seemed misleading to me. Like this channel a lot and thought the models were great.
if medium format makes you work super slow & sluggish [manually focusing, tedious roll swap]- then I'm sure it will dull the photoshoot's spirit.
How could you compensate on it, I wonder. If there's an affordable autofocus medium format model- then that'll help a lot.
Would have liked to see you address two popular claims: the medium format look vs a similar 35mm camera (using Contax Planars for both), and does MF really offer noticeably better dynamic range.
Wider latitude depending on format doesn't make sense to me. If its the same emulsion in 135 or 120, I better hope it's the same emulsion - it might be a difference of exposure and development. Film records light on a tiny silver particles - they are tiny on 135 and tiny on 120, meaning that the same emulsion should perform the same.
A comparison video should feature drum scans and 100% and 200% SBS zooms not this tiny YT compression shitfest. Alas - better the next time around?
Ivo-I struggle with that too. The only thing I can think of is that bigger format has more surface area so you have more room to smoothly transition changes in brightness. Like trying to watercolor the same scene on 8x10 vs a full-sized canvas.
Great video. Keep them coming. With love, from India.
One small thing. Couldn't help but notice, most of the 120mm pictures are a tad overexposed (by one stop at least) and the highlights are a bit blown compared to the 35mm pics. Guessing that you used the same meter reading for both the pictures,.how's that possible?
Definitely was using the same meter reading. My only guess is with the difference in the lens.
@@FilmSupplyClub I noticed that too. Jeremy Chou says he overexposed his 35mm 2 stops as opposed to one on 120 because it lets less light in. That doesn’t make sense when you’re making the settings the same on both cameras and shooting the same film just sized differently, but it does look about a stop different between the two haha.
If you were shooting at 1/4000 or 1/2000, it’s possible the Contax shutter was slower than indicated. I’ve always heard that its 1/4000 speed was a bit optimistic...?
To be honest, the colors on video were most accurate, more lifelike, as when the film looked way too warm and overexposed, but it is a photo film, cant say the same about cinema film processing.
What is this place tho? So beautiful and comfy.
When metering, did you set it at 200iso? Also, beginner film question here- but do you use you light meter set at 200 also?
May I know what was the scanner used? So good!
Honestly, the 35mm did better than expected and for anyone wanting to get into shooting film, it's probably the way to go.
I love this channel
That shot at 3:32 you can really see the medium format doing it's thing and shining above the 35mm. Honestly though both look good. Love the video.
What "thing" is that that it s doing ? All the difference I see can be attributed to something, which isn't the MF factor. Like the MF shot, the girl distort more, cause he got a step closer - the color on the 35mm has a slight green tint, which can be the scanner WB slighty off, which can be corrected - and the framing is different, the 35mm being more narrow, always can look a little weird, should have equalize by cropping a bit the 35 down to what the 120 is doin.
Did I miss it?, obvious advantage of 120 film is sharpness is retained in larger print than 35mm!!
The POV from cinematic video looks better than the photo itself... or the angle just isn’t my cup of tea. No, I’m not talking about the film’s image quality
@3:38 - I see this happening so much with 120: *Girls are on the same plane pretty much, yet one is off focus.*
I wonder what was the f-stop there, and what's the minimum f-stop you need to avoid going below- when you're shooting 120 - so this won't happen? f5.6? f8?
It's a film flatness issue that happens more with Fuji400H than it does with Kodak. It has to do with the film insert in the 120 back of the Contax. It's a bummer when it happens and F-stop doesn't totally fix it.
@@FilmSupplyClub wait...so you're saying the film (and specifically fuji's film)- somehow doesn't lay flat within the camera? Causing this missed focus?
It's not the scanning that causes it, this happens in camera?
Wow..how did you find out about that?
That's serious quality control fail by fuji/ Contax- if true.
Please Make video digital vs film photos and If digital is the best no need film . !
Make a comparison 35mm vs 6x7!
Hard to compare those two because 67 is so amazing. But it could be cool to do a video comparing 35 to 6x6 to 645 to 4x5.
Great work!
Thanks tons Clifton
Has anyone tried 120 Shanghai B&W film recently? I use their 4x5" film and like it.
The reason I am asking is I want to order some 120 Shanghai to try but not if they still are having trouble with the backing. If you are not aware, a few years ago Shanghai had a problem with the ink on the paper backing that would transfer to the emulsion of the film while it was all rolled up. The ink of the words and numbers would soak in and not come out during development! In the final B&W prints, you could faintly read those words and numbers.
Thank you.
Terry Thomas...
the photographer
Atlanta, Georgia USA
Hey bro, what light meter are ya using?
This one: filmsupply.club/products/seconic-l-358-light-meter?_pos=1&_sid=3831a0add&_ss=r
Vibes!
It's an alright comparison, almost every subject is centered. The 645 ratio and the 1.5 ratio are different. I honestly think more than bokeh. In order to give comparison, you have to frame your subjects differently.
Also get a "pro" camera than the Canon AE-1. A Leica Summicron vs Contax 645 perhaps?
120 further away looks so good
It's crazy no one here is on team 35mm, the 120 was a lot lighter and brighter but does not accent the colors very well. Too bright for me, I like that the 35mm has a better shadowing effect.
The difference to me, seems to be different exposure values and different lenses.
I use 35mm only because I don't own any medium format cameras. From what I understand the larger -120 will give you a sharper picture. You can definitely get great images from both formats.
It's not necessarily that the image is sharper. The medium format is a larger surface area capturing the same information so it enables the negative to capture more information and detail. The biggest, noticeable difference is when you start printing larger.
For the internet/instagram use I don't see much difference between 135 and 120.
At 2 inches tall, there isn't all that much of a difference. If you look closely though, there's a different depth to the larger film plane of the 120. Printing large is where you see a massive difference
Isn’t that depth mostly attributable to the DoF difference between the 645’s f/2 (often cited as a f/1.1 or 1.2 35mm equiv) vs the Canon’s f/1.8? Or are you referencing the perspective/look of shooting 80mm as a normal lens in mf?
The ONLY reason to shoot 35mm is because you somehow require 3 times as many shots per roll. I'd rather have the fidelity of 120.
Is that even a comparison? Really?
p.s still a nice video, i'm subscribing.
A very nicely produced video but you didn’t address the topic in any meaningful way.
I love how the film has a cooler tone to it.
Fuji 400H (the film used in this video) leans cooler than Kodak. It's a beautiful film stock and love shooting it near the water.
using a canon AE-1, which is a lousy consumer grade camera, compared to a professional 120 camera. seems like a weak compairson tbh
agree. We made that choice to show people that you don't necessarily need an expensive, pro-grade camera to make good images. It's not a fair comparison if you're truly trying to decide which is better. It's hard to fit everything into one video so we have to make choices here and there and then, like with this comment, it gives us ideas for future videos. Thanks for commenting.
Im just here for the ladies.
What a bunch of amateur models, there's no enthusiasm there.
This video is terrible.